Josh Jackson facing Origin suspension

So now you're back to saying league should be doing more to stop violence. I can't keep up meggsy. Make up your mind. Seriously though choosing one tackle in rugby and then a different type of tackle in league and comparing the two is about as fatuous an argument as I've heard. A better comparison would be the Paulo tackle and he got 8 weeks

Which code is serious about getting rid of illegal, potentially crippling tackles? Speight gets 5 weeks which include a semi-final, a final and a test match. Jackson gets a week. Enough said.

Yes, I understand that. But ultimately, it is just another game. Like I said though, I wouldn't have a problem if they gave those types of games more weighting. But it would raise the issue of assumption of selection.

Here we go...back in Sattlers day. I don't understand your argument at all any more. One second you're bagging the NRL for not making the game safer, the next you're saying it needs to be more like it was in Sattlers day. Jackson would have got a pat on the back for making a great rugby league tackle 5 years ago let alone 45 years ago. Next play he could have coat hangered Soward from behind, broken his jaw and really been considered a hero. I think Tiger Kelly has given you one too many knocks to the head Ginge.

Check out the ABC news tonight Barry. Play the league incident report in slow-mo if you recorded it, backwards and forwards. The first part of Soward to hit the ground is his elbow and the second bit is his head, with Eastwood's hand pressing down on it just to make sure. I have been following Rugby League avidly for 65 years and have never considered that the game needed this rubbish to be a tough and thrilling contest. That is my agenda. There are more gang tackles in one current game than you would have seen in a month when the game was in its most untamed era with Kelly, Sattler and Co. I don't think that they can ever get the wrestle out of the game but they should really stamp out its most damaging consequences. Perhaps when they have to contemplate the sort of legal action they have in the NFL they might get more serious about it.

So if an Alex McKinnon type incident occurred.... You're going to try and justify that origin isn't just another game and the offender should be allowed to play. I get what you're saying about the rarity of GF's and rep matches compared to regular season but you don't get 6 point tries and 3 point conversions in those games - the rules stay the same. I think it's pretty cut and dry mate....Don't drop people on their heads and you don't miss ANY games.

We might have to agree to disagree in this because I don't think origins and grand finals are 'just another game'. Darren Lockyer played 355 grade games and 36 origins that's a 10:1 ration. He played four grand finals - that's a 90:1 ratio. I'm not suggesting for a second that a player have to get a 10 week suspension to miss an origin but these are clearly not just 'another game'. Players strive their whole careers to play just one of these games. Ask any NRL player if it's 'just another game'.

But TB, it is the same because Origin is simply another game.

Ridiculous. League has banned actions on the field that have a high risk of injury just as much as AFL or rugby has. Bans on shoulder charges, lifting past the horizontal, punches and the concussion rules have all been put in place in the last couple of years. Rugby: tackling without using the arms is a penalty is it? It is in league as well champ. Henry Speight was involved in a swinging tackle and looks like getting a week. Good-o. The comparative tackle in league was Pauli Pauli earlier in the season and he got 8 weeks. So tell me again how rugby is protecting its players where league isn't. Soward landed on his shoulder. His head was never 'driven into the ground'. You're exaggerating the hell out of this for your own agenda. No one is getting hysterical about Jackson being cited and banned for the tackle. At all. It's a normal expectation of league that these tackles get penalised, that players are put on report and suspended for them. Show me where anyone has argued differently... The only points I've made above is that there is inconsistency in the penalty for an origin player who makes this sort of tackle and a fringe first grader who makes the exact same tackle. I haven't argued about the fact that he's suspended or the length of the suspension - just the manner in which it's applied. There's no weasel words trying to say Jackson shouldn't be suspended. Your post is completely anti-league, factually incorrect and can't be taken seriously.

The three high collision football codes in Australia all profess to be interested in player welfare and, accordingly, committed to eliminating dangerous tackles and contact from their games. The AFL have applied themselves to this in the most scientific manner by studying the actions that cause injuries and eliminating them from their game by consistently penalising these actions on the field whether or not the incident caused an injury. This caused a lot anguished moaning and groaning from the more Neanderthal of the commercial commentators and fans on the side penalised but the new rules have prevailed, there are less sickening collisions and the game has continued to prosper. Rugby has instituted the most simple safety rules...tackling without using the arms is a penalty...tackles that put a player in danger, whether accidental or not, and whether they cause injury or not, are a red card, dismissal from the field, and if proven on review, an automatic penalty. Then we come to the Rugby League dog's breakfast of offences that are defined badly and interpreted depending on who the offender is, the particular phase of the season in which the incident occurred, and the grievousness of the injury inflicted. At the lowest level it has come to the point that if you cop a whack in the head from a swinging arm you don't get a penalty unless you remain on the ground, and then you run the risk of being called a dog by the yellow press and the grandstand warriors. There is an interesting comparison alive at the moment. The Brumbies Henry Speight was involved in a one on one tackle where his opponent was swung, with no lifting, and hit the ground head first. Henry was sent off and seems certain to miss next week's elimination final. His club is defending the charge but the expectation is that he will be suspended and this has not caused hysterics in the code or the fan base. Then there is the Jackson incident, where a head was driven into the ground, and the hullabaloo and weasel words surrounding the tragedy of the poor kid possibly missing SOO III. It would probably ruin his life. Soward's life? Aargh, he's alright. Just bunged it on a bit.

Also - origin has been played under 'different rules' since the mid 80s when local league comps were cleaned up but players allowed a lot more latitude in origin.

Actually the flip side of this is also true. Say Daley hadn't been that impressed with Jackson and was going to drop him for the experience of a Lewis or a Watmough for the decider at the cauldron. That means Jackson has been suspended for a game that he was never going to be selected for and instead of getting a two game ban he's effectively only suspended for one. It's not consistent on either side of the argument for origin games to be included.

They're not just 'another game' though Sleiman. Players play hundreds of club games but most won't even play origin let alone get to say 10 games or 1 or 2 grand finals.

Bails you're a twit. I've been trying to ignore your incendiary, ignorant, one eyed, hillbilly rants for a week but geez you make it hard. As usual you've missed the point completely. Let's be honest Josh Jackson is a good player but he's not going to be the difference between winning and losing origin 3 and can be adequately replaced by any number of blues backrowers - NSW strongest position. This isn't about desperately trying to get him in the NSW side it's about him receiving a penalty much stricter than a non origin player who did exactly the same thing. I'm a dogs supporter. It's better for me if he misses one dogs game and the blues game rather than two club games.

Yes renegade the consequences should be the same but they're clearly not. Jackson misses one of the biggest games if his career to date. A fringe first grader would miss two NRL games that he might not even be selected for. The consequences are nowhere near the same.

it is plain to see why Barry doesn't get it, he is now used to things being ruled differently in Origin, in the last 10 years this Blues thing has crept into the game where it is said that origin has a different set of rules, or some sort of different interpretation of the rules to NRL and International, this has never been the case previous .... but you can see why Barry doesn't get it .... NSWRL is still alive and well

I agree. I understand that a grand final or whatever may feel like it is worth more but really, it is just another game. If the rules change to factor in the level of game, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that but really, I don't think it's necessary.

TB, That's not the right way to look at it... Origin is simply another game. If you risk injuring another player - whether it be A-grade, NSW cup, NRL, Origin or international... The consequences should be exactly the same.

There's a solution for that TB, it's called don't dump players on their heads when you've got an origin decider coming up..

There really needs to be a different weighting for origin and finals games. A two week suspension - which is hardly the end of the world - and he misses an origin decider at the cauldron. If a fringe first grade plonker commits the exact same offence on the exact same day he misses two grade games which he may not have even been selected for. It's inequitable.