Good Boy Justin

[Coxy]

As soon as you include ACTUAL injury in any judiciary consideration you're opening a can of worms. As you say, any tackle can cause injury. You then have to determine if an injury that occurs in an incident is the result of the illegality, or just bad luck.

For example, the guy that gets stunned by a high tackle that doesn't make huge contact, isn't overly aggressive, just slips high, and the guy falls awkwardly and does their ACL. Do you suspend the guy for a season because of the injury? Or do you accept the injury happened unluckily?

Likewise, a stiff arm to the jaw doesn't happen to break a guy's jaw. Does that make it less dangerous than an identical tackle that does break another guy's jaw? Do we penalise guys for hitting someone with weaker bones?

What happens if Hodges does the same tackle as he did on Riddell and a guy DOES break their neck and get paralysed?

Injury simply can't be considered. It's far too subjective, far too luck-driven.

 

[mick]

I don't wish to argue pointlessly but........surely the fact that Riddell was uninjured and continued the match proves the tackle was actually not dangerous. It cannot be argued on potential for injury as any and all tackles carry potential.

It is /was hysteria because of the spectacular way that Riddells Academy Award Winning performance portrayed it.
I've seen it plenty of times...Haynes tackle easily had much greater potential for injury but Carroll did not ham it up. If he writhed in agony then Hayne may have got a much more serious sentence.

It WAS spectacular and it WAS stupid but it was merely a lift.

If I shot a gun while aiming at your face, but missed... was it still dangerous?

 

[Coxy]

Only problem with the law Mick, is that in that scenario if you kill someone, it's murder, if you don't, it's attempted murder.

Though, I suppose you could argue in terms of gradings that'd mean a Hodges tackle where Riddell ends up in a wheelchair is grade 5, whereas a Hodges tackle where he doesn't is Grade 3.

Meh. Either way, the suggestion that damage inflicted should have a significant bearing on the judiciary outcome is frought with danger.

I have heard a suggestion that suspensions should only begin to be served from the moment the "victim" is fit to play their next game. Bit tricky though.

 

[Coxy]

Exactly, like I said, tricky, and why I still believe injury should be completely ignored in decisions. It should only be judged on the danger involved, and the likelihood of injury occurring, not the likely severity of injury.

And yes, it would have to take into account that injury can occur in any tackle. So therefore weigh up the actions the perpetrator did to increase risk of his victim.

eg, lift them and drop them on their head.

To be honest, I think Hayne's was probably less dangerous because he DID drive Carroll, which meant he tipped more than vertical and so landed on his upper back with the weight almost backflipping. Rather than Hodges who lifted Riddell vertical and let him go, meaning gravity took Riddell almost directly head first - luckily his shoulder made first contact. Though it still could've caused a serious neck injury, and I have no doubt he did suffer neck soreness from it being stretched and bent sideways.

I agreed with both gradings to be honest.

 

[Huge]

If I shot a gun and it randomly hit a persons face........................

....it's about intent is'nt it ? ....................................and that's my point illustrated !! ...........Thankyou...

Hodges merely lifted ...correct ??.....So his 'intent' was to get the player on his back...it most certainly cannot be said that he attempted anything else. he released the player BEFORE he was able guide/drive/steer the player into a truly dangerous position.

mick!...you're arguing with your anology that Hodges aimed 'intended' to place Riddell in danger...how, on the evidence can anyone say there was intent to do so.

It was Riddells theatrics the made the tackle appear so 'spectacular'.

 

[Coxy]

Mick's example may be off the mark. But you're wrong to suggest that a Grade 3 dangerous throw requires intent.

Fact is, you drop any human being on their head, it's potentially very very dangerous. Hodges a) should not have attempted to lift Riddell, since the ball was already offloaded, and b) having lifted him, he should have attempted to get Riddell more horizontal before letting him go. Given the circumstances and the style of hold Hodges had, that wasn't physically possible, which goes back to point a) he shouldn't have lifted him at all.

There was no defence for it, and that's why they didn't contest it.

 

[Flutterby]

The only person who truly knows what their intent was is the person themselves. You cannot use outward signs to judge what was going on inside someone's head (ie what their intentions are). Sure there are some physical signs that are pointers to possible intent, but some people are very good at hiding their emotions therefore you would never be able to judge their intent.

 

[Huge]

As you like. I differ also to their reasons for not defending themselves.

 

[Coxy]

The only person who truly knows what their intent was is the person themselves. You cannot use outward signs to judge what was going on inside someone's head (ie what their intentions are). Sure there are some physical signs that are pointers to possible intent, but some people are very good at hiding their emotions therefore you would never be able to judge their intent.

True, you can never 100% judge it, but you can get a fair idea :P

CF: with your opinion it just comes down to it not matching with the ideals of the judiciary and the gradings. You're not wrong, it's just not how the NRL interprets things. And really that's all that matters.

 

[Coxy]

Hahahaha, yeah. Half expected forwards to start using fixed smiles like synchronised swimmers while making tackles.

 

[mick]

I never thought intent played much a part when it comes to dangerous throws. At least it was more about positioning reflecting intent.

Just by Hodgo's tackling action alone, it shows intent.

 

[Flutterby]

Yeah I'm pretty sure the actual rule is written as "in a dangerous position", so intent doesn't come into it.

 

[Huge]

flutterby.....Then what is the grading for ?? are not all 'in a dangerous position tackles' inherently the same ??

mick!....it showed intent to lift

If he had a dangerous intent then surely it would manifest itself in a driving effort but he did not do so.

Put simply, he put a player in a dangerous position but did not have a dangerous or reckless intent. He released the player.......how can anyone not see that ?

No harm done...very little foul.

 

[Aeetee]

So if you lift a player, putting him in a dangerous position, and just let him go so he falls to the ground, you would have to be pretty fucking stupid to think that nothing would happen to them. He knew that picking him up the way he did and just "dropping him" was wrong, hence reckless.

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

flutterby.....Then what is the grading for ?? are not all 'in a dangerous position tackles' inherently the same ??

mick!....it showed intent to lift

If he had a dangerous intent then surely it would manifest itself in a driving effort but he did not do so.

Put simply, he put a player in a dangerous position but did not have a dangerous or reckless intent. He released the player.......how can anyone not see that ?

No harm done...very little foul.

lol. worst argument ever. "yeah judge, i lifted him up really high and tipped him upside down, but i let him go!"

[icon_lol1. [icon_lol1.