‘I’d be a speed bump’: Cleary free to play in big Judiciary win after using dad as lawyer

The Panthers don’t have to worry about another early-season stumble after coach Ivan Cleary came to his son’s rescue at the NRL judiciary where Nathan had his careless high tackle charge downgraded on Monday night.

The Panthers pulled a shock move before the hearing started with the club opting for Cleary to represent his son over a high-profile lawyer, and with four teams in Las Vegas, the gamble paid off spectacularly with one of the shortest cases in years.

Watch every game of every round of the Premiership Season LIVE with no ad-breaks during play on FOX LEAGUE, available on Kayo Sports | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.

Cleary was facing a three-match ban if the downgrade had been unsuccessful, with the Penrith playmaker pleading guilty to the initial charge but disputing the grading for a tackle on Wests Tigers rookie Heamasi Makasini that saw him sin binned last Friday.

He will now have to pay a $1800 fine in a huge boost to the Panthers who fell off a cliff to start the 2025 campaign and were last after 12 rounds before they stormed home to reach the preliminary final.

The halfback arrived with his father and media manager Michael Blok at Rugby League Central, with Penrith officials Matt Cameron and Shane Elford joining them shortly after.

The four-time premiership-winning coach is no stranger to representing players with Cleary taking charge for a case involving Api Koroisau back in 2021 which he ultimately lost.

But he reversed the result on Monday night, with judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew calling him “Mr Cleary Sr” to avoid any confusion before he explained how the process works.

“He’s already resting on his laurels, but I definitely thank him because it’s a big effort,” Nathan said after the hearing and deliberation which lasted less than an hour.

“I’m disappointed I had to put him through that little extra work that he had to do outside his normal job, but I’m grateful for his effort.

“I had no say in the matter (him representing me) but he was pretty confident.

“There were mixed thoughts because the last few times he’s been to the judiciary, it hasn’t worked out too well. But I trust him and we thought that we had a pretty good case. I’m glad the panel could see that.”

The biggest surprise wasn’t that the coach represented his son, but it was that judiciary counsel Lachlan Gyles didn’t cross-examine the halfback after he gave evidence to the panel of Greg McCallum and Ryan James.

“We’d usually use a lawyer in this instance, but this particular case we thought it would have more rugby league context,” Cleary explained, saying the club would call upon prominent lawyer Nick Ghabar for future cases.

His son argued that the tackle on the Tigers winger was one he makes three or four times a game when bigger bodies try to spot him up down a short side.

“It’s my due diligence to get off the line so he doesn’t become a speed bump,” he said.

“I saw him look directly at him and that’s why he juggled the ball. I kept my arm deliberately down because if it was high then I would’ve hit him high.

“My first contact was with his shoulder. Often my arm will come higher in tackles, but I deliberately left it lower because I didn’t want to him in the head.

“I believe direct contact was shoulder to shoulder, and my arm hits the ball which I believe dislodges it.”

Gyles didn’t ask the rep star any follow-up questions in a bid to poke holes in his statement, with the experienced prosecutor arguing that player welfare in 2026 is a “very important issue”.

He argued it warranted a grade two charge due to the moderate level of force, the fact Cleary raced out of the line and the risk of injury that caused by him driving through the target.

But Ivan Cleary used three stills to argue that the force wasn’t to the head or neck and that it was right shoulder to shoulder and that Makasini’s head didn’t recoil after the tackle.

“If the direct force was with his head then his head would have dropped away from the body,” he said, pointing out that there was no head injury assessment called for by the trainer or the independent doctor.

The result means Nathan is free to play the Broncos in round one ahead of a brutal start to the season for Penrith.

PREVIEW via Sam Charlwood

Penrith star Nathan Cleary has “a very good case” in having his grade two careless high tackle charge downgraded at the NRL judiciary tonight — and according to one of the NRL’s most prominent player representative lawyers it could set a precedent for the 2026 season.

The Panthers halfback is fronting NRL headquarters in a bid to have a grade two careless high tackle charge dropped to a lesser grade one penalty, following his 38th minute shot on Wests Tigers winger Heamasi Makasini in the Panthers’ 26-12 loss at Leichhardt Oval on Friday night.

Sydney criminal lawyer Paul McGirr has successfully represented some of the NRL’s most high-profile names regarding on-field matters, and believes Cleary and his legal team have a strong defence in downgrading the charge.

“From my experience he’s got a very good case to run, however it can be quite difficult at the judiciary – bearing in mind that the proceedings can get bogged down in the real nitty-gritty of technicalities as opposed to looking at the free-flowing game and incidents that occur,” McGirr told foxsports.com.au.

“One of the points that I’ve made in judiciary hearings that I’ve been involved in is that it has got so nitty-gritty that at one stage we’re arguing about whether a player’s eyes are opened or closed when making a tackle. As I’ve indicated, most players close their eyes when making a tackle as it’s a normal human reflection.”

In June last year, McGirr successfully defended Bulldogs back rower Viliame Kikau at the NRL judiciary, overturning a dangerous contact charge that stemmed from a late challenge on Eels playmaker Mitchell Moses.

Penrith will reportedly claim that Makasini was falling as Cleary made contact with the Tigers winger – a defence that McGirr believes can stand up at the judiciary.

“I’m always prepared to go to the judiciary to fight in what I believe is a good defence. Most people that take these particular matters on believe they have a good case,” McGirr said.

“With all of these matters, particularly in contact sports, not only is the attacking player making the defence or attack unpredictable but also having due care and attention for the other player sometimes is very hard to do.

“When you have two forces coming in different directions, as we know, in almost every scenario different results can occur from a very similar incident.”

Get all the latest news, highlights and analysis delivered straight to your inbox with Fox Sports NRL Sportmail. Sign up now!!!

MORE VEGAS NEWS

‘WE’LL GO’: $1.5m Saudi dream takes shape as Dogs’ Vegas takeover laid bare

VEGAS CONFIDENTIAL: The wrecking ball all NRL scouts want to see

VEGAS TEAM TIPS: Dragons’ huge backline boost; two Bulldogs flyers still in doubt

McGirr believes the NRL judiciary has an opportunity to set a standard when it comes to high contact for the 2026 season with its handling and assessment of the Cleary matter this evening.

He welcomed officials to scrutinise current processes in favour of a more subjective approach.

“Whilst I respect the process, I do know that a lot of clubs don’t bother going to the judiciary because they don’t have great confidence in the system,” McGirr said.

“Fortunately, what the NRL has over other judicial hearings is that they normally have some ex-players who have actually played the game and have a better feeling and understanding about situations.

“The judicial system as it stands need to be looked at very carefully. I have the utmost respect for Mr Bellew [Honourable Geoffrey Bellew AM SC, former Justice of the Supreme Court and current chairperson of the NRL judiciary] and other parties involved, including prosecutions, but I think that certainly needs to be looked at. Almost an identical matter can get a very difficult result.

“When you’re dealing with these particular matters, they always need to be looked at in a subjective matter as opposed to a strict objective one.”

The Panthers are quietly optimistic about having Cleary’s careless high tackle charge downgraded, standing firm that they have sufficient evidence when they head to the judiciary.

To have the matter ruled as a grade one careless high tackle charge, they will need to convince the Match Review Committee that the tackle was of low to moderate force and there were mitigating factors.

If Cleary is successful, he will be free to line up for the Panthers in their round one clash against Brisbane at Suncorp Stadium.

If he fails, the star Panthers half will miss the first three matches of the season, a move that will likely parachute Jack Cogger into the prized number seven jersey.

A spokesperson for the Panthers declined to comment on the matter.