Bulldogs vs Souths

[Foordy]

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 !

so i can't spell for shit ... sue me :thefinger:

 

[broncos4life]

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

So you don't think he was going for the ball?

 

[CaptainHook]

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.

I disagree. The ball was well and truly in the air before Graham dived. Nothing simultaneous about that - either in real time or slo-mo.

 

[broncos4life]

I disagree. The ball was well and truly in the air before Graham dived. Nothing simultaneous about that - either in real time or slo-mo.

No mate your wrong, it wasn't. Graham dived before the ball was kicked it's a simple as that

 

[CaptainHook]

No mate your wrong, it wasn't. Graham dived before the ball was kicked it's a simple as that

I don't think so. I watched it in slo-mo - Graham was never a chance of getting a charge down when he dived. He may as well have been a mile away.

 

[Foordy]

No mate your wrong, it wasn't. Graham dived before the ball was kicked it's a simple as that

I just watched the replay of the incident to confirm my opinion and IMO, Reynolds had dropped the ball first but Graham dived before the ball made contact with his foot

 

[broncos4life]

I don't think so. I watched it in slo-mo - Graham was never a chance of getting a charge down when he dived. He may as well have been a mile away.

I won't keep going but I think you are well and truly on your own there.

 

[Foordy]

I don't think it was late, but i certainly think it was both reckless and dangerous ... If Graham had have hit Reynolds in the wast or chest, no problems play on.

on another note, how many weeks for Josh Morris for his kick to the head of Luke

 

[Kaz]

Photo of incident.

Ball is on Reynolds foot.

Sorry that it's large.

 

[broncos4life]

Photo of incident.

Ball is on Reynolds foot.

Sorry that it's large.

And he has already started diving....

 

[Porthoz]

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.

Or not...

 

[Kaz]

noooooooooooooooooo

@Porthoz & myself posted the same sort of image.

My life is ruined. :laugh:

 

[Foordy]

IMO, the field goal attempt starts as soon as the ball leaves the hands, not the foot ... there is no way Reynolds could have tried other options or even move out of the way of Graham.

 

[Kaz]

IMO: I still think he could have tried to pull out of the charge down.

Awaits the flaming.

 

[Foordy]

Ok, here is the thoughts of Bill Harrigan, one of the best referees the game has seen, and former referees boss, so I think we can consider him and expert on the laws of the game:

Harrigan, who called the game for TripleM, said Sutton made the right call to award Souths a penalty 10 metres in front of the goal posts after Graham crashed into Reynolds' leg. "Accidental is no defence," said Harrigan. "You can't collide; you can't attack the kicker's leg when it's planted on the ground when he's in the act of kicking a ball. It's a penalty straight out.
"I had a good argument with Ryan Girdler on air. He said it was accidental, they'd been busting their guts for 80 minutes and to have that penalty against them was a joke. I asked 'would it change your mind if he'd snapped his leg?' I said 'mate, that's why the rule is in place - to protect the player.
"[Accidental or not] he still collided with the leg and has to accept responsibility. [Sutton was right to give Souths a penalty 10 metres in front of the posts] because when you do that to a player taking a shot at a field goal it's a penalty in front of the sticks. It's a possible three-point field goal. "

Bill Harrigan says James Graham behaved worse than Josh Dugan and other bad boys

 

[Morkel]

Ok, here is the thoughts of Bill Harrigan, one of the best referees the game has seen, and former referees boss, so I think we can consider him and expert on the laws of the game:



Bill Harrigan says James Graham behaved worse than Josh Dugan and other bad boys

And that there is precisely what I can't find in any rulebook, anywhere. It may be what the refs rule on, it may be their interpretation, but I can't find it in the rules. If someone can, and it shows that the "diving before kicking" rule is negated, then I'll happily stand corrected.

 

[Porthoz]

noooooooooooooooooo

@Porthoz & myself posted the same sort of image.

My life is ruined. :laugh:

LOL... I beat you by about 18 hours. :wink:

https://broncoshq.com/rugby-league-talk/25505-bulldogs-vs-souths-post2666799.html#post2666799

 

[Kimlo]

Photo of incident.

Ball is on Reynolds foot.

Sorry that it's large.

I see potatoes.