Live blog: Nathan Cleary learns fate after fronting NRL judiciary

Penrith Panthers star Nathan Cleary has succeeded in his bid to have a high tackle charge downgraded by the NRL judiciary. 

The halfback successfully argued the tackle on Wests Tigers winger Heamasi Makasini met the criteria for a Grade 1 rather than a Grade 2 charge. 

In doing so, Cleary has escaped a three-game suspension and will instead pay an $1800 fine. The Panther is free to play in his side's season opener against the Broncos on March 6. 

Cleary appeared at the judiciary on Monday night to contest a Grade 2 Careless High Tackle charge from last Friday's Witzer Pre-Season Challenge loss to the Wests Tigers. 

The Kangaroos halfback, who was sent to the sin bin for the 38th-minute tackle on Makasini, pleaded guilty to a Grade 1 Careless High Tackle. 

By challenging the ruling of the Match Review Committee, Cleary was not entitled to a discount for an early plea and faced a three-match suspension if he was unsuccessful on Monday night.

The Panthers play the Broncos in the opening round followed by a trip to Bathurst to host the Sharks on March 14 and a clash with Sydney Roosters at Allianz Stadium on March 20. The halfback will now be available for all three matches in a major boost for Penrith.

The hearing is scheduled to start at 6pm (AEST).

Live Blog

6.51pm: Nathan Cleary has been successful in his bid to have the high tackle charge downgraded from a Grade 2 to a Grade 1. The Panthers halfback will now pay an $1800 fine and is free to play in his side's season opener against Brisbane on March 6.

6.50pm: We are back after a 12-minute deliberation.

6.38pm: The hearing has now adjourned for the panel to deliberate.

6.34pm: Judiciary Chair Geoffrey Bellew SC is summarising the evidence of both sides before the panel of Ryan James and Greg McCallum adjourn to consider their verdict. If they are split in their decision, Bellew will use his casting vote to rule on the outcome of the hearing.

6.30pm: Cleary said there was no HIA from the trainer or independent doctor. “If there was moderate force you would expect there would be a HIA."

6.27pm: Cleary is now showing a series of still photos that he says show the first point of contact was not with the head.

“We are disputing direct contact with the head," Ivan said. "We feel the player did have an opportunity to protect himself and also he dropped his body height.

"The juggle was clearly apart of it. Nathan’s feet are planted on the ground."

6.24pm: Ivan Cleary is now summarising the Panthers defence. “We are seeking a downgrade so we are not completely absolving Nathan. 

"What I want to discuss is that the initial contact was right shoulder to right shoulder. There was then indirect contact."

6.23pm: Gyles said the level of force and upward movement made it “inevitable” that there would be contact with the head. “If someone comes out of the line with that acceleration and that level of force they need to be careful not to make contact with the head.”

6.21pm: “The recoil of the head is a good indicator of force and is consistent with a Grade 2 and not a Grade 1”, Gyles said.

6.20pm: The panel is being shown three camera angles that Gyles says show that Cleary rushed up to make the tackle because he didn’t want to be a “speed bump”.

6.16pm: NRL Legal Counsel Lachlan Gyles is now addressing the panel, outlining why the tackle received a Grade 2 charge. "The reason the tribunal will find it is a Grade 2 is the level of force," Gyles said. "He comes hard out of the line and continues his acceleration through the target. The level of force is not an entry level, low level.

"The second reason is the level of carelessness. By approaching the player at the speed player Cleary did, he did not have the ability to adjust.

"The third reason is the risk of injury. If the player had not slightly rotated his head there could have been facial injuries."

6.14pm: Nathan Cleary has commenced describing the incident. "I’m looking at him and he is looking at me, which I believe is why he juggled the ball," Cleary said. "I deliberately lowered my arm because if I didn’t, I believe I would have hit him in the head.

"I believe the contact was shoulder to shoulder. I also hit the ball and that’s why it was dislodged."

6.13pm: Ivan has called on Nathan to describe the incident. 

6.12pm: Ivan Cleary: We usually use a lawyer - Nick Ghabar - and will again but in this instance I thought it was best to give a bit of rugby league context.

6:08pm: The panel is watching replays of the 38th-minute incident in which Makasini juggles the ball before being hit high by Cleary.

5.40pm: Cleary has arrived at Rugby League Central for the hearing, and in an unusual move for players appearing before the judiciary in recent time, he will not be represented by a lawyer but his father and coach Ivan. The last player in memory to have been represented by their father at a judiciary hearing is believed to be Scott Fulton, whose father Bob was the Manly coach at the time. Cleary is also being supported by Panthers CEO Matt Cameron and Welfare Manager Shane Elford. 

Cleary will front a panel chaired by former Supreme Court judge Geoffrey Bellew SC and comprising of former player Ryan James and former referee Greg McCallum. 

The NRL will be represented by Lachlan Gyles SC.