Mon, that's a similar argument to Gould. Starts with the right of defenders to aim as high as the shoulder, like the good-ol-days. Accepts that players slip and lower their head - forget about multiple cases per game, there can be multiple in a set. Concludes that we all have to accept brutally hard hits to the head - say, 25-30 times a year. Well, no. Start from the conclusion: the head-smashes must go, or the game itself is threatened. Work back, and defenders must aim no higher than a few inches below shoulder level. preferably lower. Then everyone's happy. Except the dinosaurs who want violence and damage. They can watch boxing in the few years before it's outlawed. As for commentary 'well he did the damage when his head whacked hard against the turf, so let's not get carried away' ... jeepers. Maybe the SCG square or pitch in the finals? These are people who breath the game, you shouldn't need to point out such idiocy. Cheers.
Yep that was why the shoulder charge was binned. No control over the end outcome.
I'm becoming more and more in favour of any high forceful contact being a trip to the bin.
Will open the game And protect player welfare
It’s not rubbish at all...the answer is easy - don’t aim your tackle above the ball
Front on defenders like Gillespie, Gilmeister, Dean Lance, etc pulled off hits that we’re just as big and always aimed under the ball
If a defender CHOOSES to aim at the upper sternum and drops and launches his body upwards like Su’A did, the margin of error is tiny
Players drop, slip, fall in tackles all the time. A defender needs to allow for that. Hit above the ball all you want. If it works, fine. Great hit. But you can’t play d.umb when it goes wrong
Rubbish Barry. Every front on tackle you see is aimed at ‘above the ball’. How is a defender meant to control his body position in the last quarter of a second when coming in for a legal front on and well timed shot, as this one was, if the attacking player slips? I see too many of these decisions swinging way too far to one side of the tackle without even considering the actions of the other side.
I’m quite comfortable with that sort of tackle being the standard for a trip to to the sin bin. The issue as always is consistency
Su’A’s hit to Lewis’ head wasn’t intentional. Lewis slipped slightly coming into the tackle. Su’A’s shoulder hit Lewis directly in the head. It didn’t bounce up off the ball. It was accidental but it was also absolutely avoidable. Lewis was rubbed out of the game as a result.
Su’A DID intentionally decide to aim his tackle above the ball, when a defender does that his margin of error decreases massively.
If Su’A aims his tackle at the waist, it doesn’t matter how far Lewis falls, it won’t be a high shot. If he aims under the ball it’s still probably a legal hit. But when he deliberately aims at the upper sternum, it only takes the smallest accident like we saw here for things to go pear shaped
20 years ago that was a great hit. But now we know the significance of head trauma that sort of completely avoidable head shot has to be rubbed out of the game. The only way to do that is put the onus on defenders to make better choices and hold them accountable when things go wrong
Good decision by Klein. Hopefully the next tackle like that is treated the same way
Footy Fan
Guest
Mon, that's a similar argument to Gould. Starts with the right of defenders to aim as high as the shoulder, like the good-ol-days. Accepts that players slip and lower their head - forget about multiple cases per game, there can be multiple in a set. Concludes that we all have to accept brutally hard hits to the head - say, 25-30 times a year. Well, no. Start from the conclusion: the head-smashes must go, or the game itself is threatened. Work back, and defenders must aim no higher than a few inches below shoulder level. preferably lower. Then everyone's happy. Except the dinosaurs who want violence and damage. They can watch boxing in the few years before it's outlawed. As for commentary 'well he did the damage when his head whacked hard against the turf, so let's not get carried away' ... jeepers. Maybe the SCG square or pitch in the finals? These are people who breath the game, you shouldn't need to point out such idiocy. Cheers.
Rob
Guest
Great to see players especially Cook coming to support Lewis but why would you pat a player on the head after seeing him suffering concussion?
mushi
Roar Guru
Yep that was why the shoulder charge was binned. No control over the end outcome. I'm becoming more and more in favour of any high forceful contact being a trip to the bin. Will open the game And protect player welfare
The Barry
Roar Guru
It’s not rubbish at all...the answer is easy - don’t aim your tackle above the ball Front on defenders like Gillespie, Gilmeister, Dean Lance, etc pulled off hits that we’re just as big and always aimed under the ball If a defender CHOOSES to aim at the upper sternum and drops and launches his body upwards like Su’A did, the margin of error is tiny Players drop, slip, fall in tackles all the time. A defender needs to allow for that. Hit above the ball all you want. If it works, fine. Great hit. But you can’t play d.umb when it goes wrong
Mon
Guest
Rubbish Barry. Every front on tackle you see is aimed at ‘above the ball’. How is a defender meant to control his body position in the last quarter of a second when coming in for a legal front on and well timed shot, as this one was, if the attacking player slips? I see too many of these decisions swinging way too far to one side of the tackle without even considering the actions of the other side.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
because it's beyond Lewis' skillset and thinking ability
The Barry
Roar Guru
I’m quite comfortable with that sort of tackle being the standard for a trip to to the sin bin. The issue as always is consistency Su’A’s hit to Lewis’ head wasn’t intentional. Lewis slipped slightly coming into the tackle. Su’A’s shoulder hit Lewis directly in the head. It didn’t bounce up off the ball. It was accidental but it was also absolutely avoidable. Lewis was rubbed out of the game as a result. Su’A DID intentionally decide to aim his tackle above the ball, when a defender does that his margin of error decreases massively. If Su’A aims his tackle at the waist, it doesn’t matter how far Lewis falls, it won’t be a high shot. If he aims under the ball it’s still probably a legal hit. But when he deliberately aims at the upper sternum, it only takes the smallest accident like we saw here for things to go pear shaped 20 years ago that was a great hit. But now we know the significance of head trauma that sort of completely avoidable head shot has to be rubbed out of the game. The only way to do that is put the onus on defenders to make better choices and hold them accountable when things go wrong Good decision by Klein. Hopefully the next tackle like that is treated the same way
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
The other question is , why didn't Lewis pass it to Hopoate ? The attack unfolded perfectly and a try was possible.