Bulldogs vs Souths

[Kimlo]

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

Of course I would be, but shit happens, plenty of legal tackles cause long term injuries. I don't think it's fair to judge on the result of a tackle, Graham only had control over his actions, and IMHO his only intention was to block the ball and prevent his team losing, not a dirty dive to injure Reynolds.

 

[Foordy]

Of course I would be, but shit happens, plenty of legal tackles cause long term injuries. I don't think it's fair to judge on the result of a tackle, Graham only had control over his actions, and IMHO his only intention was to block the ball and prevent his team losing, not a dirty dive to injure Reynolds.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that ...

But IMHO, it is similar to when shoulder charges were legal ... if you made a mistake and hit someone high, then you face the penalties for that.

In this situation he tried to charge down a field goal attempt, made a mistake and made contact with Reynolds in a dangerous manner ... Clear penalty IMO

 

[CaptainHook]

He dived to stop the ball, he probably should have reversed gravity so he didn't fall to the ground but hey everyone's human

I really hope that's his defense at the judiciary. "I was going for the ball, sir. Honest! Swear to God...":rolleyes:

 

[Kimlo]

I'm not actually interested in the penalty discussion to be honest, I think it's just going to go in circles, and what's done is done.

What I am interested in, is the possible suspension he faces, do you think he deserves a big suspension?

Personally with the ruling as muddy as it is, I don't think he deserves more than a week, if anything simply because I don't believe you can argue it was reckless or intentional, perhaps careless, and I'm not sure what the grading is for that. I just hope he doesn't get a 4-10 week suspension to make an example of him because of the unfortunate injury that occurred.

I think the charges are released on Tuesday, so we'll find out. If they hit him with a big suspension, I have no doubt Bulldogs will send their best legal experts to fight the charge.

 

[CaptainHook]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that ...

But IMHO, it is similar to when shoulder charges were legal ... if you made a mistake and hit someone high, then you face the penalties for that.

In this situation he tried to charge down a field goal attempt, made a mistake and made contact with Reynolds in a dangerous manner ... Clear penalty IMO

Agreed. I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend about that simple point but anyway let's carry on...

 

[Twiztid]

I'm not actually interested in the penalty discussion to be honest, I think it's just going to go in circles, and what's done is done.

What I am interested in, is the possible suspension he faces, do you think he deserves a big suspension?

Personally with the ruling as muddy as it is, I don't think he deserves more than a week, if anything simply because I don't believe you can argue it was reckless or intentional, perhaps careless, and I'm not sure what the grading is for that. I just hope he doesn't get a 4-10 week suspension to make an example of him because of the unfortunate injury that occurred.

I don't think he deserves anything to be honest. It only warranted a penalty on the day, that is it. The injury as sad as it is, it shouldn't be the factor for the charge.

 

[Porthoz]

Haha [MENTION=2144]Twiztid[/MENTION], fair call that I strongly dislike souffs, but in truth, only marginally more than the Dogs, Chooks or Manly.

My opinion has nothing to do with whom the players were in this case, as I couldn't care less about either of them, which actually makes me impartial. Something I probably could never be if it was a Bronco, or even a Qld rep like Cronk, DCE or Thurston.

Anyway, I won't repeat myself again, as it could upset a few sensitive souls, but maintain my point of view.

 

[Kimlo]

I really hope that's his defense at the judiciary. "I was going for the ball, sir. Honest! Swear to God...":rolleyes:

And that's fair isn't it? This isn't like a high shot where there's no excuse, this is Graham legitimately doing his best for the team and trying to avoid losing. It's not unsportsmanlike behaviour going for a cheap shot or illegal play, like a shoulder charge which had an ugly result, it's a legitmate, legal attempt to gain an advantage for his team. What happened after he committed to blocking the ball can conceivably be argued as a penalty, but shouldn't result in a lengthy suspension. If anything, the result of the penalty is enough punishment in itself.

 

[Huge]

Huge lol....just checked out the fox sports site and its got a section where it lists the dogs problems...it has two players charged with descent ! They're going down it appears.....shit, how do these people get a job. Dissent you dickheads !

 

[Twiztid]

Haha @Twiztid , fair call that I strongly dislike souffs, but in truth, only marginally more than the Dogs, Chooks or Manly.

My opinion has nothing to do with whom the players were in this case, as I couldn't care less about either of them, which actually makes me impartial. Something I probably could never be if it was a Bronco, or even a Qld rep like Cronk, DCE or Thurston.

Anyway, I won't repeat myself again, as it could upset a few sensitive souls, but maintain my point of view.

Yeah and this is what I am saying. If this was a named rep player - Cronk, DCE or Thurston. It would be probably bigger news. Shit the QLD fans would say it is a NSW conspiracy if the player wasn't rubbed out for ages. Everyone will find their side of the fence and sit there.

You know me that I am a pretty straight down the line supporter. I am passionate and one eyed, but I call it like it is.

 

[Big Pete]

For the incident, I believe James Graham deserves to be charged with a Grade 2 Dangerous Contact Charge. I believe that's a fair way of doing it because I believe under normal circumstances, it'd be a Grade 3 - it was ugly contact but there was an element of misfortune.

I also believe he needs to be charged with a Grade 5 Disputing Decision charge given the way he carried on and he may even cop a Grade 1 Offensive Language charge to boot.

Unsure on his priors (whether the biting charge adds any weighting) but all up that equals 6 weeks on the sidelines.

Hopefully he spends it teaching kids that his actions were 100% wrong and you don't speak to officials like that.

Hopefully Klemmer helps him for his first week as well.

 

[Porthoz]

I hope they throw the book at him for his behaviour, especially given the fact he's the captain.

 

[Foordy]

I think he should face 1-2 weeks for the charge down attempt ... it was reckless but not intentional. I don't think the seriousness of the injury should be taken into account unless the foul play was intentional.

However with regards to the way he carried on ... I think they should throw the book at him, hit him with every type of desent charge they can make stick ... It is not the way an NRL captain should act and it is an ugly look for the game and his club

 

[Kaz]

I really hope that's his defense at the judiciary. "I was going for the ball, sir. Honest! Swear to God...":rolleyes:

He will do that.

“I haven’t seen the replays, but I think anyone that watches it can genuinely see that I’ve gone for the ball.

“I have not in anyway shape or form, gone to attack his legs. I’ve gone to attack the ball.
_____________________________

He says he was in control when speaking to the ref.

He believes he was in control when he confronted referee Gerard Sutton


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...nted-the-referee/story-fnp0lyn3-1227291414048

 

[CaptainHook]

And that's fair isn't it? This isn't like a high shot where there's no excuse, this is Graham legitimately doing his best for the team and trying to avoid losing. It's not unsportsmanlike behaviour going for a cheap shot or illegal play, like a shoulder charge which had an ugly result, it's a legitmate, legal attempt to gain an advantage for his team. What happened after he committed to blocking the ball can conceivably be argued as a penalty, but shouldn't result in a lengthy suspension. If anything, the result of the penalty is enough punishment in itself.

Agree with all your points but it just doesn't pass the smell test for mine. Graham is a player "with form" as they say and I highly doubt he was just going for the ball. The ball had already left Reynold's foot before he dived. Besides, the judiciary have already shown they take into account injuries when deciding suspensions.

I read somewhere that they added a few weeks onto Jordan McLean's sentence last year because of McKinnon's injury. I said at the time that deciding the severity of a player's suspension based on the other player's injury was disgraceful and disgusting and I stand by it. The analogy I came up with is that it was like saying it was ok to speed as long as you don't kill someone - then we'll have to book you. It's pathetic leadership but that's the NRL for mine. In their view they have to send a message to all the potential soccer moms that our game is safe to play.

 

[Huge]

I think he should face 1-2 weeks for the charge down attempt ... it was reckless but not intentional. I don't think the seriousness of the injury should be taken into account unless the foul play was intentional.

However with regards to the way he carried on ... I think they should throw the book at him, hit him with every type of desent charge they can make stick ... It is not the way an NRL captain should act and it is an ugly look for the game and his club

You must not have seen my post above....you reckon they should charge him with every charge that involves going down ? Dissent old boy, dissent !

 

[Kimlo]

Well I await the official charges, I definitely think he deserves a suspension for his conduct with the officials, but don't think he deserves a suspension for the charge down. He might be looking at 4-6 weeks though, and it's going to be almost impossible to defend his dealing with the officials.

 

[Morkel]

The game is full of situations where players knowingly risk getting hit in order to suck in defenders or get a miracle ball away. In an example of passing, if the defender has dived before the pass has been thrown it's no penalty. Because at that time, the pass is only a possibility, therefore the defender has every right to defend all possibilities. If players are willing to cut things that fine, then that's their risk to take.

Look at it from a competing for a high ball sense. If one person never competes for the ball, and only goes for the person who catches it, then if they hit them mid-air it's a penalty. If they are competing for the ball, no penalty. Is that rule not also to protect players from getting injured from being in a vulnerable position? So if one player gets put upside down while he competes for the ball with someone who is also doing so, accidental, no penalty, because they are playing for the ball, not the player.

If Reynolds is willing to be so courageous as to still go for the kick even though there is a defender committed, in mid-air, and unable to change their trajectory, then that's fine, but he can't sook when he gets clobbered.