- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Roar Rookie
Joined April 2019
0
Views
0
Published
1.1k
Comments
Published
Comments
No real problem with the red although I hope they maintain that consistency. Yellow – nope – not even a penalty.
Young send-off 'over the top', Radley sin-bin 'ridiculous' says Robbo as Roosters reduced to 11 on nightmare night
It wasn’t borderline embarrassing it was well past the embarrassing line closing in on shameful.
Forwards dropping simple balls. One off runners with no options. Predictable and frankly boring.
Notice Tupou makes (not every time but most times) a lot of post contact metres. Young needs to keep pumping his legs after contact. He gets into the tackle and stops so he gets forced back.
Sure Luai looked good but to be honest, I might have looked like a world beater behind that forward dominance.
Annesley admits Roosters were robbed as obstruction rules come under blowtorch despite Panthers' statement win
Where did I say Penrith didn’t deserve the win? I questioned the disallowance of a try in the circumstances where the same action didn’t result in a disallowance in the same game.
Personally, as a roosters fan I thought they played very poorly, particularly in the first half. They dropped so much ball it was embarrassing.
Annesley admits Roosters were robbed as obstruction rules come under blowtorch despite Panthers' statement win
I thought the Roosters were very predictable until they became desperate. The Manu no try. Another questionable decision produced by a flawed system.
Annesley admits Roosters were robbed as obstruction rules come under blowtorch despite Panthers' statement win
Indeed the penalty is lower where there is no intent but there is still a serious sanction (a custodial sentence). In this case the comparison would be if May had intended to cause injury his action would be punished by say a 4-6 weeks ban. In the circumstances where his action is not only negligent but also reckless notwithstanding there was no intent to injure then the sanction ought to be reduced to say 2-3 weeks. The fault is clearly with May. It is not an unavoidable chance collision. Walsh did nothing wrong. May, at speed, chose to attempt an upright tackle. I’ll accept he tried to pull out. I’ll accept it was an accident. But he was reckless. He contacted the head of the other player (causing serious injury – which ought to be an aggravating factor). By not charging him the NRL have made fools of themselves.
I’ve no personal axe to grind with Penrith and no particular fondness for Reece Walsh or the Broncos. I do have significant issues with the NRL’s selective enforcement of rules. If people took their partisan blinkers off and started thinking about the broader benefits of player protection I think they would be in furious agreement with me.
Game’s gone soft, huh? League's tough enough without dangerous incidents getting feather touch from judiciary
Then generally if the death was caused by their act or omission they will be guilty of manslaughter.
Game’s gone soft, huh? League's tough enough without dangerous incidents getting feather touch from judiciary
Correct. Accidents do happen. Every day and the people responsible for the accident (at fault) face the consequences.
Game’s gone soft, huh? League's tough enough without dangerous incidents getting feather touch from judiciary
Bwahahaha. So now May did what he did to avoid a neck injury. It was an accident. I accept that. An accident caused by recklessness. Seriously your arguments are childlike.
Game’s gone soft, huh? League's tough enough without dangerous incidents getting feather touch from judiciary
Do you honestly think these guys are the only ones playing contact sport at speed requiring split decisions. AFL, rugby, nfl. Seriously your argument is unsustainable.
Game’s gone soft, huh? League's tough enough without dangerous incidents getting feather touch from judiciary
Look what you don’t seem to understand is the Nuremberg defence is no defence. Claiming that you were doing what you were coached to do, going in recklessly to shut down the play, is not a defence. The point is, he raced out of the line, upright, attempting to make a ball and all tackle. He risked head contact. Head contact and injury resulted. There may have been no malicious aforethought but there was reckless indifference. It doesn’t matter if you’re doing what you were coached to do. It doesn’t matter if a try would have been scored if you didn’t do it. Reckless high contact resulting in significant injury. Should’ve been suspended. What is he supposed to do? Simple, don’t do it in the first place. How do you not get this?
Game’s gone soft, huh? League's tough enough without dangerous incidents getting feather touch from judiciary
Ok. Here goes.
1. The NRL is not serious about player welfare and too worried about the “games going soft” brigade.
2. To single out the Walsh – May incident and give an extreme legal example take the difference between murder and manslaughter. Murder requires intent manslaughter is more a reckless indifference (accidental but negligent). Murder will get you 20+ years manslaughter 8-12 (sometimes less). If you want to protect players start enforcing the duty of care. Both May and Luai should be sitting out games. I 100% agree that if it was Cleary hit by a forward in the same circumstances with the same result it’d be a 4-6 week ban.
3. When old players commentating say things like “what else is he supposed to do there he’s trying to save a try”, or “if you’re going to start penalising that there’ll be a mountain of penalties!” They are missing the point. Foul play is foul play. Until you start penalising and sin binning players for it they will continue.
4. HIA’s are farcical. I have seen clearly concussed players retake the field and the more important the game the less rigorous the process appears. The assessment should be independent, not based on subjective assessment but clinical signs. Have an 18th and 19th man who can be activated.
5. Payback. One thing the modern day “game has gone soft brigade” forget is that if a player went after your playmaker in the past the big men on the other side went after the other team for the “even up”. It really fired up the other team and refs tended to give some leeway. Anyone remember Vilisanti’s hit on Fittler in the 2002 GF. Anyone remember how Morley smashed the bloke in the next 2 tackles. Players can’t retaliate now. The ref has to police the game properly and the match review committee (or ship of fools as I prefer to call them) need to do their job.
6. The nrl is too worried about “ruining the contest” by carding players. Bin them and send them off in the game they commit the offence and you’ll be amazed at the change in behaviour.
Game’s gone soft, huh? League's tough enough without dangerous incidents getting feather touch from judiciary
It may be in the event of informed consent and if the league starts making provision for long term head injuries in their accounting.
NRL consistently inconsistent when it comes to punishments for head-high contact
The issue they have is the whole “manliness” machismo, tough game argument from uninformed commentators and pundits. Any full contact code that doesn’t strictly enforce rules to minimise head contact is just looking for trouble. The league authorities are basically doing the bare minimum to avoid criticism now. It won’t protect them from a class action in the future particularly given the clinical findings and literature available on the subject now.
Same goes for the overlooked shoulder charges and head contact when trying to stop a try. In union the forwards diving head first at the ground when 5 metres out (head well below their hips) is seriously dangerous long term and, imo, a blight on the modern game. Defenders have no option but to contact the head and referees do nothing to stop it. It will be the next major issue.
NRL consistently inconsistent when it comes to punishments for head-high contact
Agreed. They probably need to introduce the no tackle above the sternum rule that they’ve done in union.
NRL consistently inconsistent when it comes to punishments for head-high contact
I have watched and listened as the NRL has paid lip service to concussion and head injuries. The systems, protocols and sanctions they have in place are ridiculous and depending on the game, unenforced.
Origin and finals are judged differently to regular games. Big man on big man is judged differently than big on little. Last night Reece Walsh suffered a nasty cut from a head on head clash. Taylah May got put on report. The commentators blew up. “What was he supposed to do?” They squealed. Brad Fittler, not normally the voice of reason explained May should’ve bent his back and avoided head on head contact. In union it’s red card and probably 6 weeks.
League’s lip service to high shots and “accidental” contact is designed as a litigation shield. It won’t work because of the very inconsistencies pointed out in this article.
Personally I would go the other way. I’d do mandatory sessions for each and every player, medical briefings and lectures, head injury ward and rehab visits, neurologists, psychiatrists etc etc etc, then I’d say “you are all now fully informed, you can sign a waiver and play professionally or you can walk. No waiver, no play.” I think that’s the best protection the NRL can hope for.
NRL consistently inconsistent when it comes to punishments for head-high contact
Latrell is the essence of mercurial. His best is amazing and when he is playing his best I think he is one of the top 2-3 players in the game. I don’t think being at Souths has been good for him and nor do I think he should be playing fullback but wow, amazing talent.
With the greatest of respect to the rare exceptions I don’t think many professional league players (also rugby, soccer, afl, nfl etc.) are well educated. Though disciplined in their training they, like most entertainers, are not real role models. We expect to much of these guys.
Watch them play. Be entertained.
Listen to their interviews where they talk about the game. Take what you want from them.
Do not project intelligence, moral authority, articulate speech patterns or other indicia of high level contemplation on these people. It’s a zero sum game.
'I don't care if I'm swearing': Latrell set to escape NRL sanctions despite foul-mouthed radio interview
8 weeks for calling someone a monkey
2 weeks for a dangerous, late, high tackle that has the propensity to cause permanent damage.
Ok, that makes sense.
NRL Round 2 judiciary: Hughes in strife for ref bump, Nikora faces feather touch ban over Kikau hit, Luai charged twice
Why?
'I am really sorry': Leniu cops HUGE ban as NRL judiciary hands down verdict for ‘monkey’ racial abuse at Mam
Oh, how clever. I think you just might be one of those people who, in the name of justice, equity and tolerance, are willing to be unjust, inequitable and intolerant to anyone not thinking like you or saying the things you want said.
You’re a hypocrite when you dismiss comparable issues because you have no reasonable answer or because the issue doesn’t rank high enough on the victim hood hierarchy.
'I am really sorry': Leniu cops HUGE ban as NRL judiciary hands down verdict for ‘monkey’ racial abuse at Mam
Really. That’s interesting. The timing of an apology is determinant of its genuineness. So no person, after due consideration of an action can be serious or genuine in their apology. Interesting. I’ll let Kevin Rudd know. 😂 😂
'I am really sorry': Leniu cops HUGE ban as NRL judiciary hands down verdict for ‘monkey’ racial abuse at Mam
Would being call “a big girl” be an offence? Misgendering, demeaning, feminising. Is that offensive?
'I am really sorry': Leniu cops HUGE ban as NRL judiciary hands down verdict for ‘monkey’ racial abuse at Mam
If someone calls Ezra a pussy this weekend for crying in the change rooms after being called a monkey, should that person get 8 weeks? Just wondering.
'I am really sorry': Leniu cops HUGE ban as NRL judiciary hands down verdict for ‘monkey’ racial abuse at Mam
Meh. For the baying mob 8 weeks won’t be enough. In fact for them a life ban and a crucifixion wouldn’t be enough.
I’m afraid I think this is a joke. I guarantee if a white player was racially vilified by a black or brown player every single one of the permanently outraged proverbial pearl clutchers calling for the head of Spencer Leniu would be justifying for and defending the actions of the player. That’s how the hierarchy of victim hood works.
This is all just obfuscation and misdirection away from real problems within the lowest sections of our socio-economic pyramid.
'I am really sorry': Leniu cops HUGE ban as NRL judiciary hands down verdict for ‘monkey’ racial abuse at Mam
Frankly no comments on this matter have seemed reasonable to me. Does anyone really think Lenui is a racist? Really?
I see a lot of roosters hate.
I hope Ezra doesn’t listen to rap music. He’ll be in tears all day.
Anyone remember the Panthers 5/8’s wedding speech?
Storm meet teacup.
Fittler wants players who've criticised Leniu to face sanctions for influencing judiciary, Gallen slams 'hysteria'
Been dying for an excuse to say:
LETS GO BRANDON!
Huge coup sees Wallabies hooker coming home to Super Rugby on long-term deal, with World Cup in sights