Brisbane Broncos fullback Reece Walsh has been found guilty of contrary conduct at the NRL judiciary on Tuesday evening.
Cited by the NRL's match review committee after Sunday's loss to the Gold Coast Titans for the alleged verbal abuse of referee Chris Butler, the judiciary have elected to find him guilty with a three-match suspension the result.
The star fullback pled not guilty to the offence so was ineligible for a one-week discount.
The suspension rules him out of this week's clash with the Dolphins, as well as State of Origin 3. Walsh will then also miss the game against the Canterbury Bulldogs in Round 20.
Appearing alongside lawyer Nick Ghabar, Walsh appeared in front of a judiciary panel which featured former Penrith Panthers forward Tony Puletua, former referee Sean Hampstead and judiciary chairman Justice Geoffrey Bellew.
After a delayed start to proceedings and over three hours of evidence which also featured Broncos teammate Patrick Carrigan and Gold Coast Titans' forward David Fifita, as well as a further extended period of deliberation, the judiciary found Walsh guilty.
The incident saw Walsh picked up by the referees microphone during the game after a penalty was blown for an obstruction yelling the words "what the f*** do you mean, c***."
Referee Chris Butler, in his statement, said captain Adam Reynolds had been warned over Walsh's behaviour, who was constantly questioning decisions during the first half of the game.
He also said the ten metres had been awarded after the penalty in question because of Walsh's "body language." The referee did not hear what Walsh had s
Walsh contended during his evidence that the comments were actually directed at Carrigan, who had, according to evidence, told Walsh to "slow your f****** brain" after giving away the penalty.
“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," Walsh said during the hearing.
Walsh admitted he was frustrated with the decision, but never spoke in that mannger to the referee, although didn't disagree the swear words and comment had been made.
The NRL's prosecution, represented by Patrick Knowles SC, alleged that the comments had been directed at the referee, or at the very least in result of the decision, and argued that Walsh had only told the referee he was talking to Carrigan because he knew he had crossed the line in swearing.
Both Carrigan and Fifita held similar versions of events throughout the hearing, although admitted to having discussed the hearing with Walsh.
Fifita also slipped at one point, suggesting the comment was to the referee before correcting himself, while Carrigan confirmed he was involved in the situation.
"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," Carrigan said during the hearing.
Knowles hit on the fact evidence had been discussed in his closing statement, according to NRL.com. He also said the words from Walsh, whether directed to Walsh or not, were in response to the decision.
"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," Knowles said.
"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.”
Walsh's lawyer Ghabar countered that, suggesting that the evidence was similar because they were telling the truth.
“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," Ghabar said.