Dragons Star in Strife - Judiciary.

[Dakink]

Barrett to face 6 weeks!

I Dont remember the incident - anyone see it?



Barrett faces six-week ban
May 29, 2006

ST George-Illawarra captain Trent Barrett faces six weeks on the sidelines after being charged by the NRL match review committee today.

Barrett was hit with a grade-five striking charge after an incident in the 14th minute of the match against Newcastle on Friday night, won by the Dragons 38-12.

He will be rubbed out for six weeks if he enters an early guilty plea, and eight if he unsuccessfully defends the charge.

Barrett's forearm is alleged to have come into contact with Knights wing Brian Carney's head when an attempted shoulder charge went wrong.

Melbourne forward Ian Donnelly has also been charged, but not for the eye-gouge alleged by Penrith opponent Frank Pritchard during the Storm's 17-16 golden point win over the Panthers yesterday.

Donnelly faces a grade-one charge for contrary conduct and unnecessary contact with the head and neck in the 54th-minute incident involving Pritchard.



http://adsfac.net/ag.asp?cc=COK004.20138.0&ord=1&bk=1 (http://mercury.tiser.com.au/ADCLICK/CID=000018370000000000000000/acc_random=98953535/SITE=FOXS/AREA=SPORT.BREAKINGNEWS.STORY/AAMSZ=300X250/MAAMZ=/pageid=21757868/relocate=http://adsfac.net/link.asp?cc=COK004.20138.0) http://mercury.tiser.com.au/nserver/SITE=FOXS/AREA=SPORT.BREAKINGNEWS.STORY/AAMSZ=300X250/MAAMZ=/pageid=1 ("")
He will miss one match with an early guilty plea, and two if he unsuccessfully challenges the charge.

AAP

[Super Cronk]

Missed it aswell.

Also was Frank Pritchard ever taught not to tell porky pies or is he that stupid that he didnt think anyone would check the replays?

[Teegy]

i missed the barrett incident. i say fight it

[Luke]

I didnt see the Barrett incedent aswell.

[Titanium_BD1103]

I actually did see it... I reckon fight it... but it was not great as he made Carney fall backwards into the ground and it was straight to the face, however it didn't deserve 6 weeks.. maybe 3... and if accidental.. even 2 and additional points penalty.. :(

[Social Loafer]

hmm remember when Barret belted Morris (I think) last year from behind? Only got 1 week for that...

[Super Cronk]

Wasnt that Marsh? and yeah that was an awful decision to only give him 1 week.

*edit*

Just saw the new footage on nine and it does not look good for Barrett.

[Dragons]

Wasnt that Marsh? and yeah that was an awful decision to only give him 1 week.

*edit*

Just saw the new footage on nine and it does not look good for Barrett.
Yeah it was Marsh.

[The Original Idiot]

hmm remember when Barret belted Morris (I think) last year from behind? Only got 1 week for that...
He should've been gone longer than danny Williams, considering he clobbered Marsh while his back was turned. It was really funny when he touched the ball next and a huge boo went up from the Parra crowd. Trent Barrett is the biggest coward in the NRL.

[Teegy]

ok barrett bashing aside i really think he should contest the grading. he got nothing o lose really its only 2 more weeks.

and barrett had a reason to attack MArsh back then. you all forget that Marsh hit hit high with an elbow to start it off

[Super Cronk]

ok barrett bashing aside i really think he should contest the grading. he got nothing o lose really its only 2 more weeks.

and barrett had a reason to attack MArsh back then. you all forget that Marsh hit hit high with an elbow to start it off

Oh bull plop...and Danny Williams was hit high and head slammed it doesnt give him the right to king hit another player. Just because Barrett is the poster boy for rugby league he shouldnt be allowed to get away with these things. Doesnt give any player the right to do what they did.

Teegy have you seen the new footage of the hit?

[Teegy]

no but i haven't seen the new footage but risking 2 weeks more for a possible downgrade that could remove 4 weeks is a good thing to do IMO

and i would say if it was billy slater or Cooper Cronk throwing punches after being hit high then your opinion would be different

[Super Cronk]

no but i haven't seen the new footage but risking 2 weeks more for a possible downgrade that could remove 4 weeks is a good thing to do IMO

and i would say if it was billy slater or Cooper Cronk throwing punches after being hit high then your opinion would be different

New footage will be pretty hard to beat.


Would not. I didnt defend Danny Williams...i didnt defend slater when he kicked skando, i didnt defend any other stupidity by a storm player. Cronk would keep his cool and wouldnt respond like that...

[Teegy]

Just saw the footage on NRL Scoreboard and agree it will be hard to fight but id still go for a dowgrade to a grade4 stricking.

and i couldn't comment on you and your opinion on the danny Williams issue cause i didn't use NRL forums so. but id remeber you argueing your case on the Hill and Slater charges

[Super Cronk]

Just saw the footage on NRL Scoreboard and agree it will be hard to fight but id still go for a dowgrade to a grade4 stricking.

and i couldn't comment on you and your opinion on the danny Williams issue cause i didn't use NRL forums so. but id remeber you argueing your case on the Hill and Slater charges

nope...i didnt try make excuses for what they did. Altho i honestly with all my heart and beliefs think Hill should not have been suspended...i didnt think it was that bad others thought it was as bad as commiting a murder...difference of opinions really and looking at hills past you can see it was a one off. I cant remember making excuses for slater tho...i remember saying what he did was terrible and that he deserved what ever he got. But when the 7 weeks came up i admit i was a little shocked and thought 7 weeks was a bit much mainly due to him missing the SOO series(game 1 atleast). I clearly remember saying he deserved 4-5 weeks tho....which is only a week or 2 off what was given. Hardly making excuses. More like i disagreed with the length of suspensions albeit by a couple of weeks.

[The Original Idiot]

Ah, Cronk vs Teegy is on again! *grabs deckchair and popcorn*

[[BroncosGirl]]

I think he should just cop it on the chin, and take it. It was a stupid thing to do, its seriousy like "whats the point"? Did he need to do it, No! And it obviously had an affect on Carney.

[Dakink]

Ah, Cronk vs Teegy is on again! *grabs deckchair and popcorn*

*Nudges Idiot - Room for two here to watch the fireworks!!?*

[Queenslander]

Why wasn't Barrett sent off?
By Dean Ritchie
May 30, 2006

THE NRL last night defended referee Tony Archer's failure to send off Dragons captain Trent Barrett for a sickening forearm to the head of Newcastle winger Brian Carney last Friday night.

In a stunning development it has been revealed that the incident only came to light after a Channel 9 tape operator stumbled across the damning vision yesterday morning and notified the NRL.

In his final season before moving to English club Wigan, Barrett faces an eight-week suspension if he fights and loses a grade five striking charge before the judiciary.

Should he plead guilty, Barrett would be out for six weeks in what would be a crippling blow to the Dragons' premiership campaign.

Archer who appeared to be in good position 10 metres away from the tackle, did not dismiss Barrett - or even award a penalty - despite the hit being compared to Clint Newton's savage hit on Dragons forward Ashton Sims in 2004.

The incident went unnoticed throughout the entire weekend before the previously unseen vision was unearthed by Channel 9.

Newton had his charge referred and was banned from playing for 12 matches.

Archer did not receive any call from his video referee, Chris Ward, or his touch judges, Steve Chiddy or Russell Turner.

NRL Referee's Coach Robert Finch said Archer must not have had a clear view of the incident.

"Tony has sent blokes off before - he's no shrinking violet," said Finch. "Obviously he didn't see it. Tony isn't a bloke who wouldn't act on something. He would have acted.

"If you don't see see it, you can't act on it.

"That is why there is a Match Review Committee, to pick things up like this."

No player has been sent off in more than a year now.

The last player dismissed was Sydney Roosters enforcer Adrian Morley against Bulldogs in round six at Homebush in 2005.

Any suspension of more than two weeks would rule Barrett ineligible for the Dally M Medal, where he is polling strongly.

It is likely Mark Gasnier would shift into five-eighth if Barrett is suspended.

The incident came in the 14th minute of the match against Newcastle on Friday night, won by the Dragons 38-12 and resulted in Carney receiving treatment.

Barrett was unavailable for comment last night.

"I don't want to say anything," said Dragons chief executive Peter Doust. "It has always been our practice to take the time allowed to us. We won't say anything to until midday [today].

Barrett's manager Wayne Beavis added: "Until I'm in possession of the evidence and the facts, I don't want to make comment."

Told though that Barrett was facing a significant charge, Beavis said: "It would appear so."

Knights officials were also reluctant to comment.

The Newcastle doctor Peter McGeoch said Carney had suffered some concussion from the incident and would undergo routine tests before being cleared to play against the Bulldogs.

The Daily Telegraph

[Queenslander]

I really hope Barrett actually gets a punishment that suits the crime, unlike his childish hit against PJ Marsh.

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

I agree that Barrett should face the sidelines, however the hit was very accidental, Carney was falling into the tackle and got hit high, i will refer to the test match hit on Hunt, no suspension was given and hunt had to be taken off the field, given that crocker got 9 weeks for his tackle and slater got 7 for his kick, barrett should be facing 4 weeks max even with roll over points, now carney is a tank ive seen him play in the super leaugue were he has been walloped by players, that get no suspension and he has no problems, so i think the concussion story on carney is a make up to make the charge worse, if he really was concussed so badly why did he play 80 mins then.

Secondly the incident last year with pj marsh if i remember correctly it was pj marsh that looked like he was gonna cry, he hit barrett high and he knew it. And barrett although over reacted had every reason to be angry he gets hit high all the time and nothing happens. It was the frustration of the game plus marsh had been hitting barrett all night with high shots, worse then the hit bailey got a 3 week suspension for this year.

[Super Cronk]

Foxsports.com.au


ST George Illawarra captain Trent Barrett will miss six matches after entering an early guilty plea today on a striking charge.

[Titanium_BD1103]

Good to see he took the early plea... it was not a great tackle and therefore he did the fair option... but it will mean that St-George Illawarra will have to dig deep to keep things going smoothly... ;)

[Teegy]

we will go alright without him. our stike rate of wins is almost as good with him out than when hes playing. we might see wether brownies going to move gaz to 5/8 or is he going to try a rookie. i personally would have fought the grading as 2 more weeks isn't that much more for possibly getting 3 weeks less

[Queenslander]

Newton slams Barrett ban
May 30, 2006

NEWCASTLE second rower Clint Newton believes St George Illawarra skipper Trent Barrett got off lightly with a six-match suspension today for his sickening hit on Knights teammate Brian Carney.

http://foxsports.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,5001,5161441,00.jpg
At issue ... Barrett hits Carney.

The five-eighth was rubbed out for six games today after accepting the early guilty plea for his grade five striking charge on Carney, a ban which will sideline the 28-year-old until the Dragons' round 20 clash against the Raiders in Canberra.

But Newton, who missed the tailend of the 2004 season and the early rounds of 2005 with a 12-game ban for an elbow to the head of young Dragons forward Ashton Sims, said the penalty could have been much heftier.

He hit out at what he claimed was a media prejudice against some players in the NRL.

"Nothing against Trent Barrett but I suppose I'm probably just a little bit disappointed that if it had of been a Michael Crocker or an Adrian Morley or someone of that nature they would have probably showed probably half a dozen replays and there probably would have been a different outcome for one of those players," Newton said.

"I think sometimes the media can be a little bit prejudicial with certain players and I suppose that's disappointing from my point of view ... I just think that sometimes things get passed over for certain reasons."

Barrett, who will join English Super League club Wigan next season after exercising a get-out clause in his contract with the Dragons, said the prospect of an eight-week ban had frightened him off the prospect of a trip to the judiciary tomorrow night.

"The risk was just a little bit great, six weeks is a long time," Barrett said today.

"It's certainly the last thing I wanted considering I stepped down from rep footy to be available over the next six weeks, and then to have this happen is really shattering for me.

"Sometimes things just go a little bit wrong ? obviously it did and I'm paying for it now.

"I was surprised considering that nothing was done about it on the field and to tell you the truth I didn't think to much of it when it happened.

"Obviously seeing it it's a different story."

Dragons chief executive Peter Doust said he had no problem with the manner in which the charge was laid, with the NRL tipped off about an extra video angle showing Barrett's forearm clearly coming into contact with Carney's head by a Nine Network tape operator.

"The circumstances around the charge being laid have been a little unusual to say the least," Doust said.

"While that has attracted a bit of attention, at the end of the day the information was available and the NRL acted as they should have."

NRL chief operating officer Graham Annesley said the league would continue to explore all available avenues when it came to punishing acts of foul play.

"The objective of the judiciary system however remains to identify and punish acts of foul play regardless of the extent of media attention they may have received," Annesley said.

"It is the duty of the match review committee to investigate, examine and consider all reasonable available evidence irrespective of whether a report has been made."

The ban will leave the former Test five-eighth with only seven regular season matches at the end of the season, but Barrett remains hopeful the Dragons can remain in the hunt for a finals berth during his absence.

"I think the best thing we can do as a club and as a team is go out and win on Friday night, we're still going to have a good side on the park," he said.

"I'll still get seven competition games in before the semi-finals, we've just got to make sure we're in good shape in six weeks."

AAP

[Super Cronk]

"Nothing against Trent Barrett but I suppose I'm probably just a little bit disappointed that if it had of been a Michael Crocker or an Adrian Morley or someone of that nature they would have probably showed probably half a dozen replays and there probably would have been a different outcome for one of those players," Newton said.

I agree that those other players mentioned would have been hit with a much bigger suspension...but with that being said 6 weeks is enough for the Barrett hit IMO.

[Teegy]

"Nothing against Trent Barrett but I suppose I'm probably just a little bit disappointed that if it had of been a Michael Crocker or an Adrian Morley or someone of that nature they would have probably showed probably half a dozen replays and there probably would have been a different outcome for one of those players," Newton said.

that might be because they have more prior inciedents resulting im more loading clint

[Super Cronk]

that might be because they have more prior inciedents resulting im more loading clint

I think he is referring to the way the media expose it. As he says in his next line "I just think that sometimes things get passed over for certain reasons" If this channel 9 employee didnt come across the new footage then i think its safe to say this incident would have been "passed over" aswell. But if mick crocker made a tackle and the attacking player was laying on the ground injured there would have been 5 different camera angles and there would have been a report made on the field....but because it is Barrett we only get 1 replay and that doesnt show anything, i think thats what he is getting at.

[Teegy]

then he is a fool. their was only one camera angle and it hadn't been discoved till yesterday

[Super Cronk]

then he is a fool. their was only one camera angle and it hadn't been discoved till yesterday

There was the first angle....then yesterday the second one came up that showed the contact with the jaw.

[Queenslander]

then he is a fool. their was only one camera angle and it hadn't been discoved till yesterday

Dont forget that Channel Nine have about 20-30 odd camera's with most focused at the ball player, so there are bound to be more than one angle available.

[Teegy]

Dont forget that Channel Nine have about 20-30 odd camera's with most focused at the ball player, so there are bound to be more than one angle available.
im sure their is but the fact that only one has showed it clear (ATM) make Newtons statement ridicluas

[Queenslander]

Selective tral by media: Newton
By Margie Mcdonald and Brent Read
May 31, 2006

NEWCASTLE forward Clint Newton believes "media prejudices" could have seen St George Illawarra's Trent Barrett escape scott-ree for a sickening tackle on Knights teammate Brian Carney.

Barrett yesterday copped a six-week suspension by the NRL but only after the eagle-eyed intervention of a television editor.

Newton spent 12 weeks on the sidelines two years ago for a similar incident, when his elbow hit the jaw of Dragons forward Ashton Sims.

Yesterday he was appalled the Test five-eighth had come so close to escaping punishment after an illegal tackle on Carney was missed by match officials and, seemingly, television cameras and only picked up by a Channel Nine tape operator three days later.

"Nothing against Trent Barrett, if it had been (Roosters prop) Adrian Morley or (Storm second-rower) Michael Crocker, they would have shown half-a-dozen replays and it would have been a different outcome," Newton said.

"That's where the media can be prejudicial to some players; that's disappointing from my point of view.

"I would have liked to have seen what the outcome would have been if I had been one of the blokes involved.

"It would have been shown and shown again until they showed whether there was something in it. It's unfortunate for Trent."

Barrett's forearm hit Carney's cheek in the tackle in the 14th minute of last Friday night's game at EnergyAustralia Stadium. Carney dropped the ball and, from the Dragons's feed into the scrum, Mark Gasnier scored.

Carney was groggy getting back to his feet and had some assistance by the Knights trainer, but the tackle was not replayed on screens. Referee Tony Archer, his two linesmen and video referee Chris Ward all missed the tackle.

The Channel Nine video editor noticed the tackle and submitted footage to the NRL on Monday. The match review committee then issued Barrett with a grade five striking charge.

"Match cameras, match officials, club officials, media outlets, photographers, commentators and, it would seem, most fans all missed the initial view, which underlines how difficult it was to pick up," NRL chief operating officer Graham Annesley said.

"Broadcasters take multiple angles of games each week and we call on those angles in any situation that we believe requires it."

Barrett could have faced eight weeks out if he and the Dragons had decided to fight the charge or the grading.

The international five-eighth said he was not angry that the incident had only been picked up by one person's keen eye.

"I'm just a little unlucky but that's really irrelevant now for me. I'm not worried about it all," Barrett said.

He had not spoken with Carney regarding the incident.

"No I haven't but I'm just glad he wasn't hurt too bad and I'm sure he knows I didn't mean it," he said.

"Sometimes things go a little bit wrong. I'm paying for it now."

There were fears that Barrett's suspension would cut into the 75 percent of games he is required to play over the past two seasons in order to be allowed to play in England.

Barrett agreed to step down from representative football in Australia this year so he could exercise a "get-out" clause in his contract with the Dragons and play for Super League club Wigan in 2007. But Barrett's manager said the five rep games from 2005 (1 Origin, 4 Tests) meant his client was in the clear to get his visa.

The Australian

[Queenslander]

Barrett manager slams Nine staff
By Dean Ritchie
May 31, 2006

THE manager of Trent Barrett last night described as "abhorrent" the decision by a Channel 9 employee to send vision to the NRL which resulted in St George-Illawarra's skipper being suspended for six matches.

Nine's tape operator sent footage of Barrett's forearm to Newcastle's Brian Carney directly to the NRL's Match Review Committee with manager Wayne Beavis saying: "It was an act of stupidity".

Nine's director of sport Steve Crawley will reportedly speak with the tape operator today.

Beavis claimed the operator had no right to send the vision without gaining authority from superiors.

Barrett yesterday accepted the early plea, describing his suspension as "shattering."

Beavis said of the Nine employee: "It's an act of stupidity. Trent's the unluckiest player in the world. I'm sure plenty of other incidents have missed scrutiny this year.

"It is an abuse of his (the tape operator) duty under his employment terms. He sent the tape in and he's not charged with that duty of responsibility."

Crawley would not comment last night.

NRL chief operating officer Graham Annesley said the Barrett incident was a "freak occurrence."

"It is important to take into account how unique it has been," Annesley said.

"Match cameras, match officials, club officials, media outlets, photographers and commentators and it would seem most fans all missed the initial view which underlines how difficult it was to pick up.

"It is hard to recall such an event that did not attract at least some debate or mention during or immediately after an NRL match."

Barrett will return seven matches before the finals. Mark Gasnier was last night named the new five-eighth, Ben Hornby the skipper.

"What's done is done. I certainly didn't intentionally do it. I've got to wear it, I'm not hiding from it," Barrett said.

"I remember the tackle but don't remember thinking it was serious.

"Sometimes things go a bit wrong and I'm paying for it now. These things sometimes happen.

"It's shattering for me but I've just to get on with it and train hard. Everyone knows I'm not a player that would intentionally do that."

Dragons chief executive Peter Doust claimed the Barrett's citing was "unusual".

"While we have been surprised by the circumstances of the charge, at the end of the day we wanted to make sure Trent played as many games this year," Doust said.

"I think it's common knowledge that the circumstances surrounding the charge have been a little unusual to say the least."

The Dragons have lost outright premiership favouritism with Centrebet. St George-Illawarra is now equal favourite with Brisbane and Melbourne at $8.

The Daily Telegraph

What a stupid call by Barrett's manager, he is only pissed off cause his client got caught.

[Teegy]

Clint Newton should keep his mouth closed. he got no reason to put his 2 cents in. bEavis also should have kept his mouth shout. Barrett did the crime and now hes going to do the time.

[Teegy]

SMH


NEWCASTLE prop Craig Smith appealed during Friday night's game for match officials to study footage of the controversial tackle that left winger Brian Carney concussed and cost Dragons captain Trent Barrett a six-match suspension.

The revelation came to light as the blowtorch was applied to Channel Nine yesterday not only for the way the footage was relayed to the NRL but also for the broadcaster's failure to replay the contentious incident on the night.

Barrett pleaded guilty to a grade-five striking charge yesterday and was suspended until round 20. The Herald revealed yesterday that he was charged only after a junior Channel Nine employee came across the damning footage and sent it to the NRL without consulting his employer. That led to Channel Nine's director of sport, Steve Crawley, phoning Dragons chief executive Peter Doust to apologise.

Smith, who said Carney "didn't remember the first half at all", said he asked referee Tony Archer to consult the video referee about the first-half hit. "You don't drop a ball cold and get knocked out if nothing happened, especially a bloke as tough as Brian Carney," Smith said. "I had a bit of a view and I saw his head get jolted back. Brian's not one of those blokes who'll take a dive.

"I knew something had happened. I asked him to go to the bloke upstairs, in case there was anything in it. He indicated he was going to tell them to have a look at it. Then he ordered a scrum."

Smith, a good friend of Barrett and a former Dragons captain, said he "did not have a clear view - not as good a view as he [Archer] had". But the NRL countered that the officials were hamstrung because they were not shown adequate replays. Archer was heard to say to video referee Chris Ward, "Wardy?" to make him aware of the need to check the incident, only for Ward to reply that he had not seen any replays.

Referees boss Robert Finch said officials could not ask for replays - they were at the mercy of television. "If we start asking for things, the game would go for four days," he said. "If they saw it they would have acted on it."

The tape operator at the centre of the drama was in the process of "dumping the tape" on Monday morning and after viewing new footage of the tackle emailed the NRL's director of media and communications, John Brady, who then requested the footage be sent to the league.

Doust said he had been contacted by Nine several times since, including by Crawley, who wasn't at work on Monday. But Doust was loath to criticise the network.

"I would prefer that they had let it go through to the keeper, but morally, once the evidence is made available and is clear, you have to respect it," Doust said. "If there's evidence available that can be made available to a review process, you can't argue it should be left out."

Crawley said he was "uncomfortable with Nine policing rugby league". He said: "It's not our job. If it's requested, as it often is by the clubs and the NRL, I've got no problems with that. But it's a thin line this one. The NRL should police the game, we should cover it for television, and help out when asked."

The tape operator was not at work yesterday. Crawley was expected to speak with him today. "That'll be handled in-house," Crawley said.

Knights forward Clint Newton, sent off and suspended for 12 games in 2004 for a hit on Dragons prop Ashton Sims, accused Nine of double standards, saying the incident would have been replayed repeatedly if the hit had been made by a renowned repeat offender such as Michael Crocker or Adrian Morley.

"I would have liked to have seen what the outcome would have been if one of those blokes was involved in it," Newton said. "It would have probably been shown and shown again."

The match review committee looked at the incident involving Newton when determining a grade for Barrett's offence but decided they were not comparable. The Barrett tackle was considered to be closer to Michael Howell's striking of Karmichael Hunt in 2004 and Carl Webb's punching of Ryan Hoffman last season - grade-four offences.

Barrett said: "I'd just stood down from rep footy to be available, and to have this happen is really shattering to me. To tell you the truth, I didn't think too much of it. But what's done is done. I certainly didn't intentionally go and do it. I've just got to wear it. I'm not hiding from it."

Barrett would have received a four-match suspension if not for last season's striking charge for punching Parramatta's PJ Marsh

their you go Barretts getting punished for an incident 12months ago. i sick of this loading crap.

[Teegy]

SMH


MATTHEW Johns is a top-drawer TV talent. Like the five-eighth he once was, when he calls for the ball - or the camera, as it is now - he usually gets it.

He called last Friday night when his old Knights playing mate Danny Buderus got up groggy after trying to stop a Dragons kick. Johns waltzed on to camera to tell viewers of the ordeal Buderus had put himself through, backing up from State of Origin.

Good television. Only problem is, down the other end of the park, Knights winger Brian Carney had been taken out by Trent Barrett's ****ed forearm, spilling the ball and conceding a scrum to the Dragons.

If the incident - which only came to light three days later when a junior Channel Nine employee saw it while reviewing the weekend's tapes and alerted the NRL - had been picked up at the time, the outcome of the match might well have been altered.

But in football, as in life, timing is everything.

The Barrett demolition job - for which the Dragons skipper has been outed for six weeks - has revealed some curious anomalies in the role of the video referee, in particular how his job is at the mercy of the Channel Nine director.

This time, everyone missed Barrett's high shot - referee Tony Archer, the watching reporters and the entire Nine commentary team. Only one of the 12 Channel Nine cameras had a clear view of it, although neither the cameraman nor the director had any idea of its significance.

Had either of the two seen it, Nine would have shown it - and if they had shown a replay, the video referee, Chris Ward, could have alerted Archer to how bad it was. But only if - and when - Nine decided to show a replay. The video ref can act only on the same footage punters at home watch and cannot request a replay from the television director.

If Nine had put slow-motion vision to air before the scrum was packed, it might well have been Barrett sent packing. At the very least, the knock-on would have been overturned and a penalty awarded. But if the footage had come later - for instance because Johns was midstream, talking - Barrett would have stayed free until the match review committee sat down to work. The worst that could have happened would have been his being called out and placed on report - the veritable attack of the wet lettuce leaf.

Clearly, there are moments in the game when all power rests with the director, sitting out the back in a big truck staring at 20 TV screens and worrying about the fans at home. If he runs footage before play restarts, or waits, the outcome can vary - significantly. What if the director is a Dragons supporter and decides not to show the footage? Or an ambitious would-be executive willing, say, Parramatta - a team with a huge TV following - into a grand final instead of the unwatched, unloved Melbourne Storm?
That would never happen, of course. But the fact it can be speculated upon shows the fallibility of the set-up.

Bill Harrigan, former whistleblower and now video referee, concedes he and the director are doing two different jobs: "We're up there to try and get it right 100 per cent; they're up there to show good TV."

It's clear the tempo of the match will dictate when a replay is shown - if at all. "Sometimes, because the game is ripping and tearing, they won't stop for it, they'll just keep going live," said Harrigan. "It may mean one team may get disadvantaged because something may happen and play is allowed to proceed - compared to another incident where it may have been stopped."

Based on a TV replay, the video ref can alert the referee to "an absolute 100 per cent" mistake made if the replay airs before play resumes and can also chip in before a try is awarded. "If there was a blatant offside and I can see him getting ready to award that try, then I would then come straight in and say, 'Check it'," explained Harrigan.

There's no doubt players are coached to try to give everyone - the TV director, the video ref and the whistleman - time to do their jobs. "You stay down so they can have a look at it but you're not actually faking it because you generally did get hit," explained recent retiree Jason Stevens.

Harrigan conceded the obvious. "I've got no doubt clubs are aware of that - but that's as a far as I'd go. You'd be naive to say they're not."

Nine finds itself in a dilemma. Endless replays are a turn-off, as are stoppages. It's the job of a television station to entertain.

Nine's director of sport Steve Crawley is terrified of playing cop. "My strongest feeling is I think that Nine should never become involved in the policing of rugby league," he said.

[Queenslander]

their you go Barretts getting punished for an incident 12months ago. i sick of this loading crap.

Well it all comes back to haunt him, he shouldnt have thrown a punch whilst PJ Marsh was turned around. The lesson here is that you can't always get away with past crimes.

[Teegy]

if they make a mistake then they should be allowed to add on to it to make up 12mths later. i think loading should only last 1 year. clean slate at the start of each year.

[Supergoose]

Top flight article that gets right to the point - Thanks Teegy for that one. I can't fathom in this technological world that we live in why the video ref doesn't have any camera that he wants at his disposal without the home viewer having to see it. If there was a scrum packed as a result there would've been ample time for the video ref to look at 6 or 7 angles of the tackle simultaneously to see the illegality of the hit. I don't care how it was found just glad that it was, eventually. Lucky the game's outcome didn't hinge on it but maybe that woud've been a good thing as it may have brought to light the ludicrousness of having the TV director dictate what gets replayed or not. The referees should be enabled to the job referees are meant to do and that is officiate the game whether it be from the tele or on the field.

[Steelers]

OK, there are alot of issues here... first up that hit was bad, but ACCIDENTAL... now has anyone heard Phil Gould on the Sunday Roast go on about accidents happening on the field? Accidents happen... but suspending them for lenghty periods of time make it seem like the incident was intentional. And why is the judiciary so bloody inconsistent? All the non-dragons supporters here are applauding the decision, when a week ago we were all bagging the judiciary. Oh and loading... that needs to be completely revamped. I have talked about this before so I won't repeat myself. Barrett deserved 4 weeks and thats it, but because of an incident that happened last year he will miss another 2 weeks in his final; NRL season.

[Super Cronk]

All the non-dragons supporters here are applauding the decision, when a week ago we were all bagging the judiciary.

No you have it wrong. Barretts hit was not worth 4 weeks IMO. It was an elbow to the face, i dont know if it was an accident or not but the way he was positioned it doesnt come off as an accident because noone goes into a tackle like this:

http://foxsports.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,5001,5161287,00.jpg

You try and tackle the player with your arms and hands you dont go elbow first into the players face. It doesnt look like(or come off that way) an accident...you should never be in that position to make a tackle, a shoulder charge maybe, but Barrett didnt come out and say it was a shoulder charge gone wrong nor was his shoulder even close to making contact. 6 weeks is fair for an elbow in the face.