While rugby league players aren’t generally known for their ability to perform linguistic acrobatics, it’s tough to get your head around words you can and can’t use on the footy field.
Say you call someone an ‘animal’, that’s generally seen as a positive – they’re wild, perhaps a little crazy-eyed and ready to rip in to the opposition. It’s everything you want in a teammate.
But calling someone a specific animal is likely to get you in trouble.
While in common parlance, ‘dog’ has become something of a friendly term – as the whitest man alive, I believe it is generally pronounced ‘dawg’ and stems from hip-hop culture – calling someone a dog on a footy field is about as bad as it gets, as it basically implies they commit cheap, dirty acts.
Similarly, day-to-day you can call someone ‘cat’ in a complimentary fashion – another music-based term, although this one has its roots far further back, to the days of jazz’s heady heights. But a ‘cat’ on a footy field is someone who lays down and fakes an injury to milk a penalty.
It’s almost the opposite of ‘dog’, yet somehow equally offensive.
Then there are grubs, a moniker that, if used at the pub, is not likely to make you any new friends. A ‘grub’ in rugby league is perhaps best described as a mixture of a cat and a dog – they commit cheap acts, and probably lay down to milk penalties.
Yet, for some reason, while opposition players calling you a ‘grub’ won’t stand, it can be a term of endearment from teammates and fans – ‘Grub’ is Josh Reynolds’ nickname, one which he wears with pride, and I daresay every Cronulla supporter would acknowledge Mick Ennis was a grub of the highest order, but he will always be a favourite in the Shire.
(AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)
So ‘animals’ are good, ‘dogs’ and ‘cats’ are bad, and ‘grubs’ are bad if they’re on an opposition team, but good if they’re on yours.
Confused? Yeah, me too. Have been for years.
The reason for raising this rugby league riddle is because the grubby act of performing a dog shot has been all the rage this past week or so.
It started last Sunday, in the Knights vs Cronulla game, when Luke Lewis came flying through on Kalyn Ponga and took the 20-year-old tyro out with a shoulder to the head after the Newcastle custodian had passed the ball.
The result? Ponga left the field for a mandatory HIA, while Lewis was allowed to play on without so much as a penalty called for the high, late contact. The veteran Shark was later charged by the judiciary and took an early guilty plea, meaning he won’t miss a single game.
Then, on Thursday night, Johnathan Thurston was left fuming after he was the victim of a late shot when Manly’s Jack Gosiewski came through and put a shoulder charge on the champion halfback long after he’d passed the ball.
Thurston was furious when quizzed about the incident after the match, saying, “What is it going to take? Me getting a broken rib and being out for three or four weeks before they really clamp down on it?”
JT (Photo by Ian Hitchcock/Getty Images)
In response, the judiciary charged Gosiewski with a grade 1 shoulder charge – an early guilty plea meaning he’ll miss one match, two if he fights the charge and loses.
Of course, considering the Sea Eagle suffered a broken arm during the match, which will rub him out for around a month, it’s a bit of a moot point either way.
So we’ve seen two instances in the space of five days where a big bloke comes through and puts a dog shot on a little bloke, and the result is that the victim is hurt – in one instance to the point where he’s forced to leave the field – while the guy who did the crime is allowed to keep playing, with the only repercussion being a 50-50 chance of missing one game.
The NRL is often accused of acting retroactively rather than proactively, but their crackdowns of late seem to be working.
Case in point, last week an announcement was made from NRLHQ declaring, “Referees have been instructed to penalise players for deliberately passing the ball into defending players at the ruck.”
(Photo by Mark Evans/Getty Images)
NRL head of Football Brian Canavan said, “What we have seen recently is a bad look for the game, and in simple terms, not in the spirit of the game.”
Basically, passing the ball into a defending player is a cat act of the highest order, yet one that had slunk into proceedings this year.
As a result, it was stamped out. Sure, it was dealt with 12 rounds too late, but better late than never.
Now, while – as I think I made clear above – I’m not sure whether it’s worse to be a cat or a dog in rugby league, I know which kind of act I’d rather see a player be the victim of.
I can deal with someone getting a football passed into them. I don’t like it, but not too many people ended up with long-term injuries by copping a Steeden to the ribs (in fact, it’s kind of how the game works).
But seeing a small bloke – and it’s invariably a small bloke who cops it – be the victim of a late, high shot from a big bloke? That, Mr Canavan, is a really bad look for the game.
And it’s time to stamp it out.
Because while neither are ideal, a cat act – like milking a penalty – is far better for player welfare than someone committing the grubby act of putting on a dog shot.
The time to do something about it is now – before the horse has bolted.
Orange
Guest
Played with Frosty. Can confirm he played tough
Roarfan
Guest
Fish, The NRL needs people like you not the ones they have at present. I agree if the ball goes forward its a forward pass. This grey area does'nt take into account of how fast a player is running or even just about pulled up
Chris Love
Guest
Peter, Rugby League is a game of legalised assault. Try a perfectly legal rugby league tackle on a cop in the street and see how far that gets you. As long as you follow the rules of the game the “assault” is legalised. But go outside that and put a dog shot on someone that has clearly passed the ball and you’re no longer legal. I don’t see a problem in a freindly prop sorting out another forward that is putting a dog shot on a half back. It’s the same as coming to the defence of a mate down the Valley who has just been king hit from behind. If the referees and administrators can’t sort this out quick smart then they need to allow the players to. Caveat: The Thurston and Ponga hits were dog shots 100%. But I do see a lot of “protection” of play makers calls (especially for JT) when he runs to the line, a player launches at him and the ball leaves the hands/feet after the player has launched. That’s not a late hit as the player can’t pull out of that. If play makers don’t like it they can play it deeper like the old days.
Chris Love
Guest
I can’t believe that in 2018 this is still having to be explained. Does any of these people understand what either Rugby code would look like if their interpretations of a forward pass were brought in? There simply wouldn’t be passing, or if there was it would resemble netball.
Peter
Guest
Why is Johnathon Thurston not a "cat"? After all, all he got was what one poster here described as "a bit of a push." If he doesn't bounce straight back up, isn't he a "cat"? Or does the word only apply to players we don't like? Seems to me that to a lot of testosterone-dripping macho leaguies, "cat" = "pussy" = "vagina" = "someone you can slap around because they won't or can't fight back." Just to be clear, both players were hit illegally and their assailants should have been gone for the game immediately. And there should be no nonsense about good records or not many points or early pleas.This is one area where referees and the whole disciplinary structure are in fact, a bunch of cats.
Peter
Guest
"Concerned mothers"? "Little snowflakes"? Easy to see where you're coming from. If you are so enamoured of illegal violence, I suggest you go down the Valley or Mitchell Street on a Friday night and spill some 'roided-up prat's beer. You'll get all the violence you can handle. Enjoy.
Bakkies
Roar Guru
How about penalise offside players at the ruck or lazy running in the opposition backline? Nothing worse being told to run around an offside player by the ref when a overlap is on. That's why those players do it. One day someone is trip over an opposition lying in the ruck or ram in to the back of a lazy runner to send a message.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
Except you're forgetting the crucial aspect of relative velocity. Many "forward" passes only travel forward relative to the ground because the player themselves is running forwards. In relation to the players, the ball is released and travels backwards. Problem with your argument is that it's completely impossible to account for momentum when running at speed; more importantly, if you were to judge every pass purely on whether they appear to travel forward, every high-speed pass would be forward and we would no longer have a fast, running aspect to the game. There's a reason why the rule fixates on the direction of delivery from the hands. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg
Rob
Guest
I believe reality is the dimension in which we exist. Really it's simple stuff, you can't catch the ball in a position further down the field from where it was passed (released). Under your interpretation a player attempting to catch a ball that hits his hands first whilst standing still or running forward into his chest then onto the ground is a knocked backwards from the hands? It's a knock on.
Jacko
Guest
What a world we live in where calling someone a dog is great but calling someone a man or woman...boy or girl is becoming an insult
Dave
Roar Rookie
Sorry newbie here. How do I delete identical comments?
Dave
Roar Rookie
Should've been a send off. They (shoulder charge) don't get anymore blatant and dangerous than that one.
Kangas
Roar Rookie
I would not follow the lead of afl in anything, their game is a mess now .
Kangas
Roar Rookie
True
Edward Kelly
Roar Guru
No, what you have described is a simple one dimensional (or straight line) problem and would result in the ball being stationary. Velocity is a vector quantity therefore, if forwards is positive and backwards is negative, then +25 +(-25)= 0 the ball is stationary. Footy is played in 3 dimensions but passing can be easily viewed in 2 dimensions. The forwards (and backwards) motion and the left (and right) motion. Also because of Newton's Laws the change in velocity that the player must impart is double. Therefore the player has to throw the ball backwards at 50km/hr to achieve no forwards motion. Remember the Rule is something along the lines of throwing the ball with a backwards motion from the hands.
Rob
Guest
If you are travelling at 25km/hrs forwards you are required to pass the ball at a minimum 25km/hrs backwards. That ensures the ball passed from one player to the next doesn't travel forward. It's basic physics and we shouldn't be following touch footballs pathetic attempts to create a scoring opportunity by breaking (making it grey)a basic rule to make rugby league more farcically open to ref interpretation. Keep it simple .......
Edward Kelly
Roar Guru
Sorry Fish but back to school for a lesson on forward passes. Momentum must be taken into consideration. It is basic physics that if a player is running flat out towards the try line and passes with a backwards motion the ball can and will still travel towards the try line. To fully understand this you need to understand some physics including the addition of vectors, the difference between speed and velocity, and the difference between distance and displacement together with momentum and some Newton's Laws. Thankfully we can ignore relativistic effects. Perhaps a simple example. Image two kids sitting on the back seat of a moving car. If they throw a ball across it each other the ball seems to them to be just going between them back and forth. But in physics the ball is also moving forward as it also has the velocity of the moving car. Thus to an stationary observer viewing just the motion of the ball it would seem to be moving forward as well as sideways so it is actually zigzagging up the road. In this example the stationary observer is the TV camera recording the motion from its fixed position. So you as a viewer can not really make any judgement on forward passes. Unfortunately some Refs and Touchies also do not understand the physics of passing in the NRL context.
Christov
Guest
Back in the day if that happened the player would get dropped by the opposing forwards. Now it’s just a penalty and this sort of stuff is endemic
Kangas
Roar Rookie
There has never been enough punishment for the late hits on smaller players, but their were hundreds more dog acts on halfbacks etc in the ancient era of 30-40 years ago . Plenty of my coaches encouraged that . It was a brutal game. Luckily back then we didn’t have chicken wings or deliberately attacking the tackled players knees to inure
Chris n
Guest
The shot on heighton last night was pretty ugly put on report but that was it. Heighton had to leave the field not to return.