Read on for full updates from tonight's judiciary charges.
******
10:42pm: Waddell has been banned for five matches.
"The panel was mindful of dangerous contact with the eye and the risk of seriousness injury that is associated with contact of that kind," Justice Bellew said.
"In relation to the penalty, the panel was mindful of the conclusion that was reached that the player acted recklessly and also that the player’s past judiciary record did not assist him."
10:30pm: Knowles has recommended that Waddell be suspended for five matches, while Ghabar argued for no more than two matches.
"Contact between player's fingers and the eye socket of another player is very dangerous and something the NRL must be vigilant to protect players from," Knowles said.
"You should place a penalty on player Waddell of at least five matches. I understand it is a lengthy penalty but player Waddell is not only guilty to reckless contact but you obviously take into account his lack of contrition.
"Player Waddell has not confronted the seriousness of the offence he committed."
Ghabar said: "There was relatively low or moderate contact, relatively low or moderate degree of force and therefore a relatively low risk of injury to the eye.
"In my submission, you take into account player Fa'asuamaleaui did not appear to be in any discomfort, the risk of injury needs to be looked at in what actually eventuated in this case.
"Of course the player honestly believed he did not apply a degree of dangerous force or contact to the eye. The player honestly believed he did not commit an offence.
"You should not give additional penalty for what judiciary counsel considered a lack of contrition. In my submission this offence is only deserving of a penalty of two matches."
10:22pm: Waddell has been found guilty of dangerous contact.
"The panel was satisfied that there was contact between two of the players fingers and the opposing players eye socket," Justice Bellew said.
10:02pm: The judiciary panel has adjourned to consider their verdict.
Justice Bellew told the judiciary that the main points to consider were "was there contact? was it dangerous? was it reckless or was it careless?"
9:40pm: Ghabar questioned why Fa'asuamaleaui hadn't been called to testify against Waddell after making an on-field allegation that he had been gouged.
"You know that the Titans player complained immediately about this contact. However, the complainant is not here," Ghabar said.
"You would expect that the judiciary counsel would call the complainant as a witness to determine what the nature of the incident was.
"You could also ask whether the reason for the allegation on the field was to play for the penalty. The best evidence would have come from a person that is not here to give evidence. The absence of the complainant is compelling."
Knowles replied: "No player wants to give evidence against another player. It’s an unwritten code. It's simply not necessary when you've got a number of videos and images where you can determine the seriousness of the incident.”
9:24pm: Knowles then asks judiciary panel members Bob Lindner and Dallas Johnson to watch a replay of the incident.
"Members of the judiciary, player Waddell is claiming that there is no pressure exerted from his right arm across the area of the face he was touching. It’s just implausible," he said.
"It barely needs to be said that the potential for damage is very serious indeed. There's a high degree of carelessness.
"He's giving evidence to protect his own position, rather than evidence of the truth off his recollection."
9:15pm: Waddell objects to the questioning from Knowles.
"I’m sorry but the whole time - the whole tackle - I never ever had pressure in his eyes," he said.
"I never applied any careless or dangerous pressure".
Judiciary chairman Justice Geoff Bellew interjects: "You weren’t asked about pressure or injury. Do you accept or not that at one point your fingers came in contact with or across his eyes?".
Waddell replied: "No, I don’t accept that my fingers were in his eyes."
9:11pm: Knowles: Is this seriously your evidence? You were using your hips and your right hand to put pressure on the player but you were exerting no pressure with your left hand?
Waddell: 100 per cent.
Knowles: What you really did was leave your hand there to complete the tackle, regardless of the risk of serious injury?
Waddell: No, I don’t think I did, because my hand was there for literally one second. As I reached over Max that’s the only place I could put my hand."
9:05pm: NRL prosecutor Patrick Knowles showed Waddell a still photo of the incident.
"Looking at that photograph the evidence isn’t correct because your fingers are in the eye socket, aren’t they," Knowles said to Waddell.
The Canterbury forward replied: "I believe in all honesty my fingers are across the bridge of his nose and the bottom of his forehead. You’re talking about the split of a second. My fingers were never in his eyes.
"You’re talking about the photo, you can’t tell pressure based on a photo. You’re talking about a split second within this whole second. I understand my hands aren’t in the best spot and in a perfect world they would have been but at no pressure did I put pressure in his eyes."
8:58pm: Under questioning from his legal counsel, Nick Ghabar, Waddell said he didn't know why Fa'asuamaleaui had grabbed his hand.
Ghabar: At any stage did you put your fingers in his eye socket or eyelid?
Waddell: I never felt my hand in or around his eyes at all.
Ghabar: At any stage did you take your fingers across his eyes?
Waddell: No, I didn’t.
Ghabar: At any stage did you move your fingers around his eyes?
Waddell: No, I didn’t.
8:50pm: Waddell described his aim in the tackle with team-mate Max King and said at no stage did he put his fingers into Fa'asuamaleaui's eyes.
"I got into the tackle anyway I could, and I found myself in what we call the “seatbelt” tackling position," Waddell said. "I try and straighten the ball carrier so he gives up his base and loses control.
"I put my hand over Max's head and I found my hand on Tino's forehead. I didn’t apply any pressure to his face at all and then I tried to push my hips into his hips to push him back.
"With my right hand I tried to grab his jersey and shoulder. My purpose was to get him onto his back with my teammates falling on top of him.
"As I went over Max's head, I grabbed Tino’s forehead. At no stage do I apply any unnecessary or careless pressure to his face.
"As you can see as he starts to fall to the ground I release my hand. And then he grabbed my hand as he fell to the ground. At no stage were my fingers in or around his eyes."
8:45pm: Waddell has entered a plea of not guilty.
Waddell on report
8:40pm: The second hearing involving Bulldogs forward Corey Waddell has begun.
Waddell was referred directly to the judiciary on an ungraded dangerous contact charge following a gouging allegation by Titans captain Tino Fa'asuamaleaui during Canterbury's 36-26 win on Sunday.
8:22pm: Finucane has been found guilty of a grade two dangerous contact and suspended for two matches.
He will miss matches against the Bulldogs and Dragons.
"The panel considered the force of the contact high and that the player’s lack of control of the impact was significant," Justice Bellew said.
"The panel’s also mindful of the high risk of injury, the actual injury sustained by player Crichton which included concussion and soft tissue damage to the ear.
"However the panel took into view that player Crichton made a non-significant contribution to what occurred by lowering his body in the last minute which had the effect of altering Finucane’s contact."
8:02pm: Ghabar is seeking to have the charge downgraded to a grade one offence.
"My submission is that this is a very level low of carelessness," he said.
"This is a careless contact charge. Player Crichton was not in a vulnerable position.
"What is the overriding factor in my submission is this has taken place in an arguable low level of carelessness. With carelessness, you start at grade one and if there’s any other reason to do so you grade higher."
8pm: The judiciary is now hearing legal debate over the grading, with NRL legal counsel Patrick Knowles saying Finucane was charged with grade three dangerous contact and that should be upheld.
7:54pm: Finucane has been found guilty.
Justice Bellew announced the verdict: "The decision of the panel is unanimous and did not require a vote from me. The panel considered the player was careless in his contact.
“The panel is satisfied the contact was dangerous in that it involved an unacceptable risk of injury to the opposing player. The panel found that the unacceptable risk was brought about by a manner in which player Finucane executed the tackle.”
Crichton sent for HIA following big hit
7:46pm: The panel have finished their deliberation and recalled Finucane to the hearing room.
7:20pm: The panel has adjourned to consider their verdict.
7:12pm: Bellew tells the panel members that they need to determine if Finucane's actions had been careless.
"I need to emphasise that questions of intention do not enter into play of this case," he said.
"The question you have to ask yourselves is simple - are you satisfied that the player failed to play to the level of care that he is required."
7:10pm: Justice Geoff Bellew is giving the former players on the panel, Dallas Johnson and Bob Lindner, final instructions. If Johnson and Lindner are split, Justice Bellew will have a casting vote.
7:05pm: Knowles responds with his summation and says the injury to Crichton could have been avoided if Finucane's tackling style had been different.
"What we are saying is that this action by player Finucane was careless in the sense that it could have been avoided had been in control by executing the tackle using a conventional tackling technique," Knowles said.
6:46pm: Ghabar begins his summation: "He bends his left leg forward. He can’t get any lower to make an effective tackle. There is nothing in respect that he could have done to avoid the tackle. That’s what he told you.
"You will note that there is no referee incidence report in front of you. The referee saw this as nothing more than the head clash, which is an accepted risk of playing rugby league.
"What you should not do in my respectful submission is look at it retrospectively because of the outcome. You should not find a player guilty because of the outcome, a laceration to player Crichton's ear. You should look at the tackle for what it is.
"Every player who goes out on to the field accepts that an accidentally head clash us a rush of playing the game. In my submission the contact here is not illegal."
6:45pm: Ghabar questions why Finucane has been charged when the contact was a head clash.
“Head clashes are an accepted risk of the game," he said. "What is special about this contact that makes it unacceptable as opposed to other head clashes.”
6:40pm: Knowles said that the tackle was careless because there was little margin for error if Finucane mistimed it.
"The question for you members of the panel is whether or not player Finucane executed the tackle in a careless manner," he said. "The tackle was conducted in a careless manner because of the force, because of the fact that the contact was to the head, and because the risk of injury is high."
6:35pm: Asked by Knowles whether he had been hurt in the tackle, Finucane said: "Did it hurt me? No it didn’t".
6:32pm: Finucane revealed he had been in contact with Crichton since Saturday night's match.
"I empathise with what’s happed to Stephen and I’ve spoken to him since. I wouldn’t change the line speed with when I came out of the game. It was completely accidental, head clashes happen in rugby league".
6:30pm: Asked whether his approach to the tackle would have been different in hindsight, Finucane said: "I wouldn’t change what I did".
6:25pm: Finucane was the third Cronulla defender on the right side of the ruck when he sprinted out of the defensive line on the second tackle of the set.
He said the head clash was an accident.
"The objective was to limit the amount of metres they could make on the field by getting to the player that was isolated," Finucane said. "It’s not standard tackling to try and do that and as I said it wasn’t my intention to make head to head contact. But the pivot motion and lowering of the leg by Stephen Crichton led to the collision."
6:20pm: Ghabar asked for a slow motion of the tackle on camera angle 7, and pointed out that Crichton had "dipped" as he received the ball. Finucane said: “I couldn’t have avoided this contact at this point in time.”
6:15pm: Finucane noted that there was only nine minutes remaining and the Sharks trailed 14-10. Asked whether his shoulder had made contact with Crichton's head, Finucane said: "I felt the contact with the left side of my face make contact with the left side of Stephen Crichton’s face and that’s the only contact I felt.
"I didn’t feel any contact with my shoulder and his face."
6:11pm: Ghabar questions Finucane about the incident. The Sharks forward said that he had noticed Crichton was isolated in the Penrith attacking line and thought it was an opportunity to apply pressure.
6:06pm: The panel is shown seven camera angles of the 71st minute incident, with out any commentary or audio from the referee's microphone.
6:03pm: The hearing has resumed. Finucane is represented by Nick Ghabar, with Patrick Knowles acting as the NRL prosecutor.
6:00pm: Sharks forward Dale Finucane and Bulldogs second-rower Corey Waddell are fronting the NRL judiciary tonight at Rugby League Central. The cases will be heard by a panel headed by Justice Geoff Bellew, including former players Dallas Johnson and Bob Lindner.
Finucane's hearing is up first after he entered a not guilty plea to a Grade 3 dangerous contact charge arising from Saturday night's clash with Penrith.
Waddell was referred directly to the judiciary on an ungraded dangerous contact charge following a gouging allegation by Titans captain Tino Fa'asuamaleaui during Canterbury's 36-26 win on Sunday.