Broncos fullback Reece Walsh will miss Origin III after being found guilty by the NRL judiciary on Tuesday of contrary conduct towards a match official and suspended for three matches.
In a highly-emotional, marathon hearing spanning over four hours, Walsh was found guilty by a panel – involving members judiciary chairman Justice Geoffrey Bellew, Tony Puletua and Sean Hampstead – of contrary conduct involving referee Chris Butler during Brisbane’s Round 17 match against the Titans.
As a result of the three-match suspension, he will miss Brisbane’s upcoming clash against the Dolphins and is also ineligible for selection for the Maroons in Game Three of the 2023 Ampol State of Origin series to be played on July 12.
Walsh read a brief statement to the media after the hearing but did not answer questions.
"I am disappointed with the outcome but I accept the decision of the panel," he said.
I know that I'm a role model to young kids in the community and I'm going to continue to work hard and be better in those areas that I need to get better at.
Broncos fullback Reece Walsh
Judiciary panel members Puletua and Hampstead were not able to reach a unanimous verdict and the issue of guilt was resolved by the casting vote of chair Bellew, under Rule 89 of the NRL judiciary code.
In his summary of reasons for reaching its determination, Bellew said the majority were mindful of the fact that here was no issue that the player had said the words “What the f*** do you mean, c***?”, and that accordingly, the only issue was whether those words were either:
- directed to the referee in a personal way; or
- directed to the referee in the context of challenging the decision that he made to award a penalty.
The majority were satisfied that the second of those two cases was made out.
First, the majority were satisfied that the evidence established that the player had shown a tendency to challenge the decisions of match officials on several occasions earlier in the game – one of which he had openly remonstrated with a touch judge.
The majority were satisfied that the evidence of those earlier incidents established the tendency which was relied upon.
The majority also placed little weight on the evidence given by Carrigan and Fifita. It was clear from their evidence that each of them had a close relationship with player Walsh, and that in advance of giving evidence, each of them had engaged in separate discussions with him about the incident, and the evidence they would give.
There were also aspects of the evidence of the player that the panel did not accept. In particular, the majority rejected the player’s evidence that he was not complaining to the referee when he said to him “I stopped running, I stopped running”.
Further, the majority did not accept the player’s evidence that the words he admitted to saying were in response to player Carrigan telling him to “slow his f****** brain”.
That factor tended against a conclusion that the words were said to Carrigan as opposed to the referee. The evidence of Walsh was that he had understood Carrigan’s words to mean that he should “think and be smart” and, if that was his understanding, there was simply no need to ask Carrigan what he had meant.
The majority were mindful of the fact that even though essential parts of the player’s evidence were rejected, it remained incumbent for judiciary counsel to prove the charge on the balance of probabilities and that it was necessary to consider all of the evidence. In that regard, the majority placed significant weight on Angle 3 where they were satisfied that at the time the words were said, Walsh was looking beyond Carrigan and in the direction of the referee Chris Butler.
The majority also placed little significance on the report of the referee.
The referee did not give evidence, and accordingly, his report was to be assessed according to its terms. In the view of the majority, there was no significance in the fact that the referee did not react by sending the player from the field, or taking any further action. It was clear from his report that he was not able to ascertain what the player was saying, and that given the player admitted to saying the words in question, the referee's report was of little moment.
In terms of penalty, and in reflection of the fact that the question of penalty is one to be determined separately under the Judiciary Code, the two panel members considered the question of penalty and were able to reach a unanimous position which did not require the intervention of the chairperson pursuant to Rule 89.
The Panel took the view that, bearing in mind the basis on which the player had been found guilty, the objective seriousness of his actions was less than those in which the integrity of match officials is directly challenged. The Panel considered that the offence was nevertheless serious, as it did involve foul language.
The Panel also took the view that it was necessary for any penalty imposed to act as a deterrent, not only to the player personally, but to other players across all levels of the game who might be minded to act in a similar way.
Live blog – Judiciary recap
10.28pm – The panel has returned a decision of a three-match suspension. Walsh will miss this week's clash against the Dolphins and is also ineligible for selection for the Maroons in Game Three next Wednesday.
10.22pm – The judiciary panel is still deliberating as to what suspension will be handed to Walsh.
10.13pm – Knowles has asked for Walsh to be banned for four matches. He has now submitted two extra documents. He said this is a serious case of contrary conduct and that there is a need for a serious deterrent. Walsh is not entitled to a discount as he pleaded not guilty. Ghabar has sought a one-match ban.
10.10pm – Bellew said the majority of the panel were satisfied that the player had a tendency to challenge referee’s decision. The majority placed little weight on evidence of Fifita and Carrigan and did not accept all evidence of Walsh – particularly that he did not dispute referee’s decision of an obstruction call. They were satisfied that Walsh was looking beyond Carrigan at the referee when he spoke.
10.06pm – Reece Walsh has been found GUILTY of contrary conduct towards a match official. The panel was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, with the casting vote decided by judiciary chairman Justice Geoffrey Bellew.
9.56pm – Deliberation continues as we approach the four-hour mark in total for the hearing.
9.40pm – The panel has been deliberating for over 30 minutes so far... the Broncos have missed their flight back to Brisbane tonight as a result and will instead fly out on Wednesday morning.
9.09pm – The hearing has adjourned for panel members Tony Puletua and Sean Hampstead to consider their verdict after almost three hours of evidence. If they are unable to reach a unanimous verdict Justice Bellew will use his casting vote to decide Walsh’s guilt or innocence to the contrary conduct charge.
8.50pm – Judiciary chairman Justice Geoffrey Bellew is summarising both submissions with a verdict to come shortly following deliberation.
He told the panel to ignore any statement in mainstream media or on social media by the player or anyone else outside tribunal hearing. He also said they should carefully consider the evidence of Carrigan and Fifita as there was and an admission from both players that they had spoken after the incident.
“At various times in the course of player Carrigan’s evidence he asserted that player Walsh was talking to him. You must ignore that. They can can say where they were, they can say what they heard but players can’t say what was in the mind of another player," he said.
8.30pm – Ghabar continues in his summation. He has referred to the referee’s report and said it doesn’t support the inference that Walsh’s comments were directed at him or his decision.
Referee Butler said in his report that Walsh came at him aggressively. “At that point, based on his body language, I advanced the mark 10 metres,” he said. “I could see Reece was saying something but I couldn’t hear what it was.”
8.24pm – Walsh's lawyer Ghabar is now summing up the fullback's defence.
He comes here and says 'yes there is no doubt I said what is attributed to me but I did not say that to the referee.' He doesn’t pursue the referee, player Carrigan comes over and there is definitely a conversion going on between player Carrigan and player Walsh. Yes, the referee is behind them," Ghabar said.
“Mr Knowles said the evidence of the players was ‘strikingly similar’. It was not said but there was some suggestion that the players had talked and got their stories straight. There was no admission of tailoring their evidence. It’s understandable that their evidence would be similar when you are telling the truth.”
“Robust discussion between teammates is not uncommon. This frustration in the heat of the moment is not directed towards the referee. By his own admission player Walsh is volatile and this is his reaction to comments by his more senior player.”
8.10pm – Knowles continues. "This is a case in which the players giving evidence have spoken about their evidence. You will have to make an assessment of the evidence from player Walsh and players Carrigan and Fifita.
"You heard evidence in this case that both players had conversations with player Walsh before the hearing tonight. They got their story straight.”
7.57pm – The NRL's legal counsel Patrick Knowles SC has added his summation.
"Either player Walsh said the words to the referee, or even if the words were not said to the referee, they were directed at the referees on-field ruling. It is my belief that those words are clearly directed towards the referee. It is only after the referee said “obstruction’ that player Walsh said those words. It is fairly obvious in my submission that the words were directed to the referee and the referee’s decision.
7.53pm – Fifita was asked by Knowles if he had any contact with Walsh.
"I reached out to him. I just said if you need me to do anything, I was right there, let me know. I just said he wasn’t in the wrong and that I can back you up. He said he was speaking to Patty, too. I am a friend of all them boys. I was on the field and I know what he said to Patty. He wasn’t speaking to the ref."
7.46pm – Fifita gives evidence under examination from Walsh's lawyer, Ghabar. Fifita said he was standing nearby and, as an opposition player, he wanted Carrigan and Walsh to go at each other.
"I think he was just asking the referee what he had done wrong with the obstruction from Cobbo. I tapped him on the head. I know he is a fiery person and as an opposition I was trying to get under his skin. I was right there. I had the prefect view. I heard Patty say control your head and Reece said what he said to the ref or to Patty, with the ref standing behind him. I was on the left and Patty is talking to Reece," Fifita said.
7.38pm – Titans forward David Fifita is also now being called to give evidence on behalf of Walsh and will appear via video link.
7.36pm – Knowles says to Carrigan that his actions do not correlate with someone who believed Walsh wasn't speaking with the referee in his comments.
"You are an articulate person. If you believed that player Walsh wasn't speaking to the referee, you would have approached him," Knowles said.
"I didn't go up to the referee because he said 'another one and he will go [to the sin bin]' and I didn't feel it was in the interests of the team to go and argue with the referee. I had no idea that the comment was the reason for the 10-metre penalty."
7.26pm – Carrigan has also been told by Bellew to answer questions by Knowles.
Knowles asked if Carrigan has spoken to Walsh before hearing about his evidence.
"We want to training together today, yes," Carrigan said. "Did you speak about the hearing tonight?" Knowles asks. "Yes it was discussed," Carrigan answers.
"Did you speak about your evidence?" said Knowles. "We said we had an argument that was misunderstood by the referee," said Carrigan.
7.25pm – Knowles is now cross-examining Carrigan. “You heard Reece say, to 'I stopped, I stopped. Who was he saying that to”?
Carrigan answers: “You would have to ask Reece. I believe it was the referee”.
7.20pm – Carrigan continues to give evidence. Carrigan says he had placed his arm on Walsh. “He swotted my arm away”. Carrigan then walked off.“I was angry and I didn’t think it was worth having an argument with him."
7.15pm – Carrigan is giving evidence by video link. Under questioning by Walsh's lawyer, Ghabar, Carrigan said he had vented his frustration with Walsh earlier in the game.
"Whether it be right or wrong, we have a close relationship. I felt like Reece was trying to overplay everything and got in front of Cobbo. I got frustrated and told him to slow his brain. I felt like his actions were inhibiting our ability to get a result and that is just the manner he plays in. That was a by-product of previous incidents."
7.08pm – Carrigan is appearing via video link from Brisbane and will be questioned.
7.06pm – Knowles asked if Walsh usually spoke to teammates in that manner.
"It's the way I am on the football field. I'm erratic, I play fast and speak fast. Patty is a lot more level-header and that's why he is a senior player."
Knowles argues that Walsh was directing his comments at the referee, and says he was telling the referee that because he knew he had gone too far by swearing at the referee. He argues that is why Walsh went to the referee saying 'I was talking to Patty, I was talking to Patty.' "You were back-pedalling," Knowles said.
6.57pm – Knowles continues. "Walsh says that he didn't hear the referee say obstruction. However, video evidence shown showed him saying to the referee, 'I stopped, I stopped.' Walsh disagreed with the call and yelled "what do you f***** mean, c***."
Walsh said, "it was a clear call by the referee, I was talking to Patty [Carrigan].
Walsh then asked as to the relevance of the questioning by Knowles, but Bellew told him to listen to the question and answer.
6.52pm – NRL legal counsel Knowles says to Walsh: "In previous incidents when you disagreed with the referee's decision, you spoke to directly to him and let him know. You waved your arms up when you spoke. Immediately after the penalty was awarded, you spoke to the referee and you walked towards him."
"Yes," Walsh said. "I was frustrated but I tried to plea that I had stopped running."
6.50pm – Walsh continues to give evidence, saying that he was not directing his comments at referee Chris Butler but at a teammate, Patrick Carrigan.
Walsh said he was agitated and footage showed him gesticulating with his arms as the referee walked away. Walsh ran towards him. “I was just letting the referee know that I wasn’t talking to him at the time. I just said I was talking to Patty [Carrigan] - I was talking to Patty. He obviously blew another penalty for me talking but I wasn’t talking to him, I was talking to Patty.
”With me and Patrick we have a good bond and we are honest with each other. I would say it is pretty common with us and it is something I am working on.”
6.45pm – Walsh is giving evidence on the incident. He says had his arms out after an obstruction penalty in the 74th minute. "I stopped," Walsh told the panel he said. Teammate Patrick Carrigan then said to him "slow your f****** brain."
"I felt like at the time I was trying to support my teammate and he was coming at me," Walsh said. "Me and Patty have a really good relationship and we are very verbal towards each other."
Walsh said he responded to Carrigan, "what the f*** do you mean, c***".
6.40pm – Geoffrey Bellew asks Walsh's lawyer Nick Ghabar if there was any dispute that Walsh had used the words f****** and c***. Ghabar said there was no dispute.
6.35pm – A report by referee Chris Butler was tendered following the match, in which it is said that Walsh was warned earlier on in the match for his behaviour. "At half-time, I warned Adam Reynolds [the Broncos captain] that if Reece continued to question decisions he would be penalised."
Video and audio footage was also shown from previous incidents throughout the match which showed Walsh confronting the referee. Footage shows the above mentioned report from Butler regarding his conversation with Reynolds, where Butler is heard saying: "I get that he is a passionate football but I can’t have Reece questioning decisions. That is three times now.”
6.29pm – The hearing has begun with NRL legal counsel Patrick Knowles SC presenting evidence. The panel has been shown five seperate angles of the incident with audio which occurred in the 74th minute of the clash.
6.25pm – We're underway at Rugby League Central after a lengthy legal discussion.
6.00pm – The case will be heard by judiciary chairman Justice Geoffrey Bellew and panel members Tony Puletua, the former Panthers forward, and former referee Sean Hampstead. Walsh is being represented by Sydney lawyer Nick Ghabar.
5.00pm – The hearing for Walsh will begin in Sydney at 6.00pm AEST.
