Bulldogs vs Souths

[Cult]

I think we should implement touch footy rules... less danger of anyone getting injured that way. :rolleyes:

I did an assignment in high school on something I don't remember but I read that touch football has a huuuuuge amount of injuries compared to most sports. I haven't played for a bit but people were always doing ankles and knees.

 

[Morkel]

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.

Graham launched before Reynolds kicked. Therefore one had more time to pull out of the action than the other, despite how minute. People go on about Reynolds being courageous, for mine that means that he is willing to risk injury in order to be ultra-competitive. Well he risked that injury one too many times, it was bound to happen.

 

[Big Pete]

Graham launched before Reynolds kicked.

Yes and he shouldn't have.

He dived so early and recklessly that he was always a risk of making dangerous contact.

Reynolds shouldn't have to adjust to avoid illegal action.

 

[Ari Gold]

Yes and he shouldn't have.

He dived so early and recklessly that he was always a risk of making dangerous contact.

Reynolds shouldn't have to adjust to avoid illegal action.

Until Reynolds kicks the ball it's not an illegal action though? So it's not really a case of Reynolds needing to avoid illegal action, it's just the correct move based on the information available, no?

 

[Big Pete]

No.

You're blaming the victim here.

Technically, a swinging arm isn't illegal unless it hits the head. When somebody does get high, nobody says the ball-runner should have ducked and avoided the contact, the onus is on the bloke going in with the reckless action.

 

[Nashy]

Why doesn't section 15 come into play Again?

Wrong call, injury or not.

 

[Big Pete]

Because that isn't how they assess it.

Reynolds didn't delay the kick, the contact was dangerous and could be considered late.

 

[Ari Gold]

No.

You're blaming the victim here.

Technically, a swinging arm isn't illegal unless it hits the head. When somebody does get high, nobody says the ball-runner should have ducked and avoided the contact, the onus is on the bloke going in with the reckless action.

Except in that instance contact with a player is illegal. If Graham contacts Reynolds as he tries to run the ball it's fair collision, it's only because he's deemed a kicker that the contact becomes illegal. And Graham dived before the kicking action begun.

 

[Porthoz]

Graham's action wasn't reckless, it was a perfectly legal attempt to charge down a kick, which is what rule 15 is about. The aftermath, where both players collide, was nothing more than a freak accident. This is the crux of the question, nothing else!

As much as it feels good to not blame the victim, fact is he has as much responsibility in what happened by taking the risk he took, and we shouldn't let the unfortunate result cloud our judgement, but that is exactly what's happening.

 

[Big Pete]

Except in that instance contact with a player is illegal. If Graham contacts Reynolds as he tries to run the ball it's fair collision, it's only because he's deemed a kicker that the contact becomes illegal. And Graham dived before the kicking action begun.

Point is, the ball-carrier shouldn't make a split second decision to avoid potentially illegal action.

The only argument that could be put in place is that he was trying to make a tackle but Graham gave himself up with his actions - he was playing for the kick.

Graham's action wasn't reckless

Yes they were.

If they weren't, he would have been able to show more control.

He didn't, he just launched himself to do whatever he could to stop the kick and he wasn't able to stop himself from attacking the legs of the kicker.

which is what rule 15 is about

That is about delaying the kick. Reynolds kicked it as quick as he could, the problem was Graham dived too early.

The criteria is quite clear - dangerous, late or high.

 

[Mr Fourex]

@Big Pete

Are you regretting starting this thread. :laugh:

This is how I am feeling.

Happens a lot when Portmorkel is involved .....

 

[Huge]

My guess is they will belt Graham for his confrontation of the ref but on his charge down they will rule it as an accident. He most certainly didn't go straight at the legs, more to the side and was entirely focused on the balls flight, it really was unintentional .the reason why they introduced the rule was because of the kamikaze leg dives one particular player kept doing. I think they will not rule too harshly on the charge down.

 

[CaptainHook]

Graham's action wasn't reckless, it was a perfectly legal attempt to charge down a kick, which is what rule 15 is about. The aftermath, where both players collide, was nothing more than a freak accident. This is the crux of the question, nothing else!

As much as it feels good to not blame the victim, fact is he has as much responsibility in what happened by taking the risk he took, and we shouldn't let the unfortunate result cloud our judgement, but that is exactly what's happening.

Is it really what's happening? I dunno. Let's say he was going for the ball - the fact is he wasn't quick enough and ended up making contact with the legs of the kicker - which you can't do. He needs to cop the punishment.

 

[Sproj]

Any contact with a kicker's leg is always going to result in a penalty when an injury occurs. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. If it doesn't, it becomes open slather on kicker's legs again and the NRL doesn't want that as they then become legally viable if a career ending injury occurs.

 

[Twiztid]

I do not understand why so many people are bringing out the Rugby League has gone soft BS tag. If anything kickers are getting smashed legitimately even more in the last 2 years. The downtown rule brought them back into a position where defenders can get to them. The difference has been the contact must be from the waist up to minimise injuries to lower limbs which are unprotected if in the process of kicking.

Either way, I don't really care any more. Port has a hatred towards Souths and he will never change that mindset.

I see it as a penalty, it was given as such. The rulebook has it there, but it is in need of a rewrite to better define all incidents. I am pretty sure we said that last year when we all went to the rulebook for some incident.

 

[Kimlo]

If Graham was a Broncos player I'd expect the same thing, doing everything he can to stop a field goal. The intention should be to block the ball, not worry about falling the wrong way and injuring the other guy.

I don't care about arguing wordings of a rule book, but I don't think there was intention to cause injury, just a brave attempt to stop a field goal which went wrong.

Ultimately his intention was to block the ball, not aim for his legs, there's no sense in that.

 

[Foordy]

If Graham was a Broncos player I'd expect the same thing, doing everything he can to stop a field goal. The intention should be to block the ball, not worry about falling the wrong way and injuring the other guy.

I don't care about arguing wordings of a rule book, but I don't think there was intention to cause injury, just a brave attempt to stop a field goal which went wrong.

Ultimately his intention was to block the ball, not aim for his legs, there's no sense in that.

Conversely, if Graham did that to Hunt or Milford, I suspect you would be filthy and calling for his blood

 

[gordjw]

Conversely, if Graham did that to Hunt or Milford, I suspect you would be filthy and calling for his blood

Haha! Absolutely, but then I'm a filthy, hypocritical, one-eyed supporter when it comes to the Broncos. And also, I don't think I've ever seen a Bronco give away an actual, legitimate penalty.