Greg Inglis’s horrendous hit on St George Illawarra’s Dean Young in the Rabbitoh’s big win over the Dragons on Saturday night should have resulted in the Souths fullback’s instant dismissal.
No doubt the usual defences and excuses will be trotted out, but this was every bit as dangerous as a stiff or swinging arm, in fact more so because Young’s head felt the full force of Inglis’s upper body weight.
It was made worse by the fact Young was already being held by another Souths defender and was looking around for support, only turning to face the oncoming freight train that was Inglis at the last second.
Young left the field in a neck brace and on a stretcher. Inglis went on to help his side to a comprehensive win.
It beggars belief that an attack or contact to an opponent’s head, whether careless, deliberate or anything in between, can be tolerated in light of all the evidence about the damaging long-term effects of concussion.
Inglis’s hit ranged anywhere from extremely reckless to completely cowardly, and was totally unnecessary. Young’s progress had been effectively halted and Inglis could have locked the ball up in a smother tackle.
What possessed him to take the course he did I suppose only he can answer. However, the question he did answer on the field after the game when interviewed by Fox Sports – that he didn’t think there was too much wrong with the tackle – surely came from a man who hadn’t seen a replay or lives in absolute denial.
I have not seen a more vicious hit in the game this season, and whether it was a deliberate act is beside the point.
This was not a case of a forward hitting the ball up one pass off the ruck, and an opposing player looking for a big collision, both men facing each other and emphasising the gladiatoral aspect of the game.
There has to be some sense of collective welfare on the part of the players in certain circumstances and Inglis showed no regard for Dean Young’s safety in this case. The judiciary need to act and give him the rest of winter off.
M-Rod
Guest
not to mention Justin Hodges all time classic when he dove into an injured Brett Morris on the ground in last year's Bronco's/ Dragons match at Suncorp... woof!
al
Guest
it wasn't the worst hit in the season. Young was very naive the way he run into Inglis, not even looking at Inglis and bracing himself. Or trying to avoid impact. When you blindly run into someone you always end up worse...
Bazzio
Guest
What is it about violence in sport and seeing "big hits" causing bodily & brain trauma that is so attractive? Do people REALLY enjoy watching others being hurt for entertainment? ~ Is that the intention of "sport"? How many here on this forum think that civic violence or pub brawls is "entertaining"? Are people now so cruel that they enjoy seeing pain inflicted? Is there not enough horror in the world now to satisfy these violent lusts, or are some never satisfied even when "enough is enough"?
getoverit
Guest
you nailed it Dayer..."a dog act" what drivel. anonymous psuedo-journalistic slander is a real dog act.
Jimbo
Guest
The tip of my shoulder certainly is not soft tissue, oikee. And the clue is in what happened to te players - Dean Young was knocked out, Kasiano was not. Knockouts result from trauma upon the brain. When Kasiano's cheek broke, it absorbed most of the impact. It is even more strange that given you claim to be somewhat aware of the impacts of concussion, you ridicule attempts to minimize the number of them in the game. All 16 club doctors support banning the shoulder charge. Although it can look spectacular, I would rather watch league without it, than have no league at all once the lawyers have a field day tearing the NRL to shreds for not taking action in spite of the evidence.
Tom
Guest
I fail to believe even the thickest league player would be so stupid as to use their unprotected head as a weapon in a tackle - hence why very few people were calling for Nate Myles to be punished for the hit on Farah in origin. On the other hand, Inglis clearly was using his shoulder in a deliberate manner. The difference is in the intent. The NRL needs to ensure that contact with the head is minimized as much as possible, lest we have a situation like in the nfl whee former players are suing the league for damages. However, that doesn't mean some contact is purely accidental, whereas some is the result of negligence, recklessness or downright malice ( I would put Inglis on the reckless category, Travis Burns in the malicious)
Mushi
Guest
It needs to be something outside what is expected on the field.
Mushi
Guest
In the us they wear helmets not head gear. Some researchers have commented that headgear that is soft and cushions impact would be more useful.
apaway
Roar Guru
Well, that's a different way to look at it Gettasett. I don't know what Inglis was intending to do and as you say, maybe he was looking to inflict some damage and have Young drop the ball. But then you say, definitely not deliberate. How could it not be deliberate if the intention was to hurt Young and make him drop the ball? If you mean contact with the head was not deliberate I would have to agree because I don't think league players generally are going to risk suspension to attack an opponent's head. But it was a reckless act and put an opponent in danger.
WoobliesFan
Guest
We qlders were asking the same for over 50/60 yrs of interstate rivalry
Gettaset
Guest
I just wrote a wordy comment which has disappeared? Apaway says "inglis could have locked up the ball with a smother tackle". He could have, if that was what he wanted to do. GI wanted to hurt Young and make him drop the ball. It worked and it is completely within the spirit of the game. Was he high? Perhaps, debatable and definitely not deliberate. Refs should be able to place legally uncertain tackles on report without stopping play. GI should have been allowed to pick up the ball and play on. Probably would have scored. Long live the big hits! -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Bazzio
Guest
You are SO wrong Phil ~ everything that I've heard in the media is pro-shoulder charge except this message board. I really thought that I was out of touch with reality when I heard so many commentators & other people argue for leniency like yourself. Thankfully it's not me who's out of touch, and even more thankfully the Match Review Committee aren't as well. 4 weeks is SOFT punishment, all things considered .
Bazzio
Guest
Agree Punter ~ the "legality" of a tackle "style" is not in dispute, but connecting with the head in any was IS. The grade 4 & 5 weeks Inglis is facing is the maximum penalty. I expect that penalty will be significantly lengthened next year so as to give the players a message ~ hit the head & you're off and out for some time.
ALAN
Guest
Agree with GI, didn't think there was that much in it. If we ban the shoulder charge we may as well start watching soccer...or worse stil AFL! GI is an very exciting and extremely entertaining player from Kempsy. The real tradgedy is him not playing for NSW!!!!
JVGO
Guest
Maybe king had been watching Myles in Origin on Farrah. Nate got away with it there as well. Time to get all this sorted with some lengthy suspensions.
Phil Coorey
Roar Pro
Good god - that is a stupid argument. Please don't engage me any further on this thread.
Minz
Guest
If headgear made a difference to concussion outcomes, American Football probably wouldn't have such a huge issue with concussions.
Matt
Guest
Inglis up to around 5 works. Didn't Pritchard (who has a string of prior's) or someone do a shoulder charge into the head and get one week? T'eo as well (got 3 weeks from memory)? Burns could be out for 16 weeks, ouch!
apaway
Roar Guru
Phil Feel free not to read, but go to Youtube, bring up Inglis Hit on Dean Young and freeze it at the 0:54 and 1:06 marks. Arguments about intent, recklessness etc can be made, but there is no dispute about where the first contact is made if you watch the video.
mushi
Roar Guru
They cover your cheek bones. League ones don't as it affects the field of vision