Penrith coach Ivan Cleary made a surprising move Monday night, representing his son, Nathan Cleary, at an NRL judiciary hearing where the star playmaker successfully had a careless high tackle charge downgraded.
The Panthers opted for the coach to lead the defense instead of retaining a high-profile lawyer, a gamble that paid off spectacularly with one of the quickest cases in recent memory. With four teams currently in Las Vegas preparing for matches, the outcome was a significant boost for Penrith.
Watch every game of every round of the Premiership Season LIVE with no ad-breaks during play on FOX LEAGUE, available on Kayo Sports | Latest to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.
WHAT’S GAMBLING REALLY COSTING YOU? Set a deposit limit. For Free and confidential support call 1800 858 858 or visit gamblinghelponline.org.au.
Nathan Cleary had pleaded guilty to the initial charge of a careless high tackle, but disputed the grading of the incident involving Wests Tigers rookie Heamasi Makasini, which resulted in a sin bin during last Friday’s match. A three-match ban loomed if the downgrade failed.
Now, Cleary will pay a $1800 fine, a major relief for the Panthers, who struggled early in the 2025 campaign before a strong finish that saw them reach the preliminary final.
The halfback arrived at Rugby League Central with his father and manager, Michael Blok, joined shortly after by Penrith officials Matt Cameron and Shane Elford.
This wasn’t Ivan Cleary’s first time representing a player at the judiciary; he previously handled a case for Api Koroisau in 2021, though that attempt was unsuccessful.
Judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew addressed the situation by referring to Cleary as “Mr. Cleary Sr.” to avoid confusion as he explained the hearing process.
“He’s already resting on his laurels, but I definitely thank him because it’s a big effort,” Nathan Cleary said after the hearing, which lasted less than an hour. “I’m disappointed I had to put him through that little extra function 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 quality case. I’m glad the panel could see that.”
Cleary put on report in pre-season loss | 02:24
The biggest surprise wasn’t that the coach represented his son, but that judiciary counsel Lachlan Gyles didn’t cross-examine Cleary after he provided his testimony 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,” Ivan Cleary explained, adding that the club would call upon prominent lawyer Nick Ghabar for future cases.
Nathan Cleary argued that the tackle on the Tigers winger was a routine play, one he makes several times a game when facing larger opponents.
“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 opted not to question the star halfback, instead arguing that player welfare in 2026 is a “very important issue” and that the incident warranted a grade two charge due to the level of force and the risk of injury.
Ivan Cleary countered with still images, arguing the force wasn’t directed at the head or neck and that the contact was shoulder-to-shoulder, with no indication of head injury requiring medical attention.
The result means Nathan Cleary is available for the Panthers’ round one match against the Broncos, a crucial start to a challenging season.
PREVIEW via Sam Charlwood
Penrith star Nathan Cleary had “a very good case” in having his grade two careless high tackle charge downgraded at the NRL judiciary Monday night — 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 was seeking to have a grade two careless high tackle charge reduced to a lesser grade one penalty, following his tackle on Wests Tigers winger Heamasi Makasini in the Panthers’ 26-12 loss on Friday night.
Sydney criminal lawyer Paul McGirr, who has successfully represented several high-profile NRL players, believes Cleary and his legal team had a strong defense in seeking the downgrade.
“From my experience he’s got a very good case to run, however it can be quite challenging 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 stemming from a late challenge on Eels playmaker Mitchell Moses.
Penrith argued that Makasini was falling as Cleary made contact – a defense McGirr believes could stand up at the judiciary.
“I’m always prepared to go to the judiciary to fight in what I believe is a good defense. 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 defense or attack unpredictable but as well 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!!!
Sharks confident ahead of 2026 season | 03:57
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.
He welcomed officials to scrutinize current processes in favor 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 optimistic about having Cleary available for their round one clash against Brisbane at Suncorp Stadium.
To have the matter ruled as a grade one careless high tackle charge, they needed to convince the Match Review Committee that the tackle was of low to moderate force and there were mitigating factors.
