Bulldogs vs Souths

broncos4life said:
Sorry Pete but I have to disagree with you there. If we are going to start ruling on dangerous contact based on whether an injury or not is suffered then we might as well give it away now.

Players do injuries in all sorts of tackles, so are they all dangerous contact?
Click to expand...

Let me be clear, it isn't based on injury, it's the situation itself.

If you dive at the legs of a kicker and make contact, you're going to get penalised and the Reynolds situation demonstrates why.

Just like how McKinnon demonstrated why lifting tackles are so dangerous.

Or Greenfield showed how dangerous shoulder charges are.

It's a tough sport, but to eliminate these Tony Caine esque moments is something the game should be aiming towards, not ignoring it because it seems unfortunate.

So was the contact dangerous, late or high?

I'd say it ticks 2/3.

Thankfully he plays for the right team, so he won't cop much if anything.
 
gordjw said:
Since nobody could be bothered, I had another look.

The only way this can be a penalty, is if the ref decided that Graham "forcefully spear[ed] at the legs of a player in possession exposing him to unnecessary risk of injury". Which I suppose he did, but that has nothing to do specifically with kickers, I'm guessing that's the same rule they use for cannonballs.

I don't know where that leaves the other part of the rules which says you can continue to tackle the kicker if you're committed.

So I guess I've changed my mind, but I do wonder what would have happened if Reynolds wasn't injured, or if Graham had tackled him around the body.
Click to expand...

He wasn't attempting a tackle, he was attempting a charge down. no-one is saying he can't attempt a charge down or attempt to put pressure on the kicker.

in this case he got it wrong and crashed into the the kickers legs ... penalty.

even if it wasn't officially changed in the rule book (and i can't be bothered looking to see if it was) the interpretation of what has been considered dangerous contact on kickers has included that for at least 2 years ... we all want consistency, and that has consistently been a penalty for years. but now it has cost a team the game (in a large part to the official rule that states, that fouls on a player attempting a field goal, the penalty is taken right in front, 10m out).

players and coaches have known, and seen this interpretation since it starts and never once complained about it.

How do you think Graham and Hasler would have reacted if Burgess had have down the exact same think to Hodkinson. Hell Hasler would have enough fines to wall paper Sydney
 
Kaz said:
Forget Rule 15 as it doesn't apply.

Dangerous contact on field goal: the rule explained

There was much confusion after lead referee Gerard Sutton handed South Sydney a penalty in front of the sticks when halfback Adam Reynolds' leg was taken out on a James Graham chargedown. Referees boss Tony Archer fronted the media post-game to explain the rule.

" there is an unsuccessful field goal attempt, and there is an infringement on the kicker, that penalty is awarded 10 metres out from in front of the goal posts," he said.

"That's why they went to that position for the penalty. It's not where the ball bounces, which is just from a general play kick. That was the difference in it."

Whether the penalty should have been awarded or not, Archer was unwilling to say.

"It's really difficult for me to comment because the player has been placed on report for the dangerous contact, and there obviously has to be a process that has to occur in relation to that," he said.

Bulldogs v Rabbitohs: Five key points - NRL.com
Click to expand...
FFS, 10 only applies IF there is an infringement on the kicker, which is where 15 comes in. How else do you determine whether there was an infringement in the first place? 10 is a consequence of 15!

Graham was not late and did not deliberately attack the legs of the kicker, which would be the only way you could punish him according to the rules, hence... no fault!
 
I don't know why people keep pointing to some rule-book we happened to find online when the head of the referees explained the rule to the press.

I'd say his word over-rules what we've got infront of us.

Intent doesn't come into it, so to say it wasn't deliberate doesn't factor into the conversation since Graham ended up making dangerous contact.
 
Big Pete said:
I don't know why people keep pointing to some rule-book we happened to find online when the head of the referees explained the rule to the press.

I'd say his word over-rules what we've got infront of us.

Intent doesn't come into it, so to say it wasn't deliberate doesn't factor into the conversation since Graham ended up making dangerous contact.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, where does the referee's boss say it's a correct penalty? He explained rule 10, and no one is arguing it.
 
Last edited:
Surely this rule was brought in to prevent the type of injury that occurred to Reynolds last night.
The kickers / play makers need protection when vulnerable, just as the catcher do when trying to diffuse the high ball. Personally I don't think it goes far enough. I think Scott should have been wiped out for his hit on Thurston . Couldn't pullout? Pigs arse! He drove him knowing he was unprotected. Do we want see open season on the kickers and catchers, I think not.
 
I think we should implement touch footy rules... less danger of anyone getting injured that way. :rolleyes:
 
[video]https://youtu.be/v3d3UZH7mfg[/video]

1:20 for the rule and how refs assess whether it's a penalty.
 
Porthoz said:
I think we should implement touch footy rules... less danger of anyone getting injured that way. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
There are still plenty of ways to be injured. Attacking the legs of the kicker is indefensible and should not be one of them . Intentional or not.
 
Yes, I believe they call it due process Porthoz.

But there's the rule, that's how they assess the situation.
 
Foordy said:
I heard about it on the ABC on the way home and just saw it on the news ... and here is my take on it:

The referee was 1000000% right in this case, the rule was brought in about 2 years ago that if you make contact with a kicker below the wast the it is a penalty, no ifs buts or maybes. it doesn't matter whether he had intent to go for the legs or not.

Reynolds is likely to be out for 4 months because of the incident and thats the reason the rule was introduced in the first place.

The way Graham acted is disgraceful, it is not the way an NRL captain should act...

The Bulldogs fans acted disgracefully, but it is not the first time for them and it wont be the last, in fact i heard that a Bulldogs fan actually king hit a bunnies fan and sent them to hospital ... as i said disgraceful.

I can comment on referee inconsistency throughout the game as i didn't see it (just the highlights and that incident/reactions of fans etc)

Scott should have been penalised for several of his shots on Thurston as well, but thats another story.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a penalty and the way Graham carried on incited the crowd. Fine him for sure.
Reason I picked your post out Foordy is that the king hit never happened. Someone was shoulder charged and the perpetrator has been charged with assault. Classic example of the media making a mountain out of a molehill
 
Big Pete said:
Yes, I believe they call it due process Porthoz.

But there's the rule, that's how they assess the situation.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it was how they interpreted it. That is what Archer said. He made it quite clear that he woudn't comment on whether the interpretation was correct, for the sake of that due process.

Just because it resulted in a freaky serious injury, does not make that charge down dangerous. Reynolds was not in the air and unable to change his trajectory, thus he was not unprotected and is just as responsible for the contact as the player charging down.

I have no doubt Graham will be found guilty because of the result, but if Reynolds hadn't been hurt that way, I'm not even sure the refs would've blown a penalty at all.
 
To say Reynolds was responsible for his injury is just wrong.

He's entitled to go for a field goal.

Graham isn't entitled to launch himself at a kickers legs.

It really is that simple.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=1899]Big Pete[/MENTION]

Are you regretting starting this thread. :laugh:

This is how I am feeling.

going-around-circles-words-circle-ribbons-colorful-stuck-endless-repetitive-circular-pattern-to-illustrate-being-lost-31772655.jpg
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 513
1:25:47
ARL Round 15, 1996 - Brisbane Broncos vs Newcastle Knights
View full media list »

Active Now

  • NYCDB
  • Johnny92
  • Sproj
  • eggstar10
  • TwoLeftFeet
  • bb_gun
  • theshed
  • Fozz
  • broncsgoat
  • FACTHUNT
  • I bleed Maroon
  • Harry Sack
  • marw
  • Broncosgirl
  • Financeguy
... and 4 more.
Total: 104 (members: 24, guests: 80)
Robots: 416
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.