vertigo
State of Origin Rep
- Mar 2, 2010
- 6,333
- 4,456
This was my thinking too, although Luke could still get off regardless of perceived squaring of ledgers.
Grand Final Discussion
- Thread starter Big Pete
- Start date
This was my thinking too, although Luke could still get off regardless of perceived squaring of ledgers.
CaptainHook
NRL Player
- Jun 17, 2013
- 2,990
- 1,303
James Hooper's comments were disgraceful. To say that Luke should not be suspended because there was no injury just left me shaking my head. A disgraceful comment - it's a bit like saying it's ok to speed just as long as you don't hit someone - then you'll have to be booked. I do expect Luke to get off - this scenario probably highlights the flaws in having ex-players on the judiciary - they probably won't think the tackle deserves to miss a big game.
In my opinion, consistency and common sense can't co-exist. The only way to get consistency is to have black and white rules and enforce them. Was it a dangerous tackle? Yes. Does it deserve a suspension? Yes. Forget what week it is. Make the ruling, issue the punishment, let the Sydney media dry their tears and let's move on.
It's a great opportunity for the NRL to step up and show some leadership and not bow to media pressure but I won't hold my breath.
In my opinion, consistency and common sense can't co-exist. The only way to get consistency is to have black and white rules and enforce them. Was it a dangerous tackle? Yes. Does it deserve a suspension? Yes. Forget what week it is. Make the ruling, issue the punishment, let the Sydney media dry their tears and let's move on.
It's a great opportunity for the NRL to step up and show some leadership and not bow to media pressure but I won't hold my breath.
- Apr 26, 2008
- 34,578
- 35,550
But it is okay to speed... Sometimes.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,225
- 26,002
- Thread starter
- #23
Good call by the judiciary.
I feel for Luke especially when by the rules, a trial game is just as important as a Grand Final game but it was a dangerous tackle, he had a history and he had to face the time. I'm glad the judiciary took the emotion out of the equation and essentially judged the situation based on it's own merits.
Certainly makes things interesting, I wonder who will come in?
I feel for Luke especially when by the rules, a trial game is just as important as a Grand Final game but it was a dangerous tackle, he had a history and he had to face the time. I'm glad the judiciary took the emotion out of the equation and essentially judged the situation based on it's own merits.
Certainly makes things interesting, I wonder who will come in?
- Jan 25, 2014
- 44,470
- 33,730
Reynolds gets away with his tackle on Tate, everyone complains. Luke gets suspended for his tackle, everyone complains.
The NRL just can't win these people on facebook...
The NRL just can't win these people on facebook...
Alec
International Rep
- Mar 4, 2008
- 19,413
- 12,537
The Reynolds one was worse, and it just shows how inconsistent this whole thing is.
- Jun 12, 2013
- 14,504
- 17,937
Yeah, couldn't work out how to post the bloody thing on here.
Twiztid
NRL Player
- Apr 14, 2009
- 1,668
- 136
I was about to say that.
Frankly I think the game is getting too PC. While I agree this tackle is in the same grade as others that have seen players get 1 week and they got off as they didn't have the carry over points.
We are just going over board on the "lifting" tackle. While you can pretty much knock a player square between the eyes in a tackle and if you are lucky, it is ignored. Or illegal play like Reynolds and it is missed. Which is worse? Which one should really be ruled out?
It is like the NRL have gone from protecting the heads from concussion only so far, but shit let's fuss over any slight lift in a tackle.
I feel sorry for Alex McKinnon but seriously they are just going a tad overboard.
Twiztid
NRL Player
- Apr 14, 2009
- 1,668
- 136
Last edited by a moderator:
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
I absolutely think he should have been suspended but....... It would have been at most a two week ban in any normal set of circumstances however a punishment should fit the crime, it's a principle we all hold dear but in reality, this punishment does not fit the crime. Don't get off your high horses here about this please but where is the option to delay the punishment. In the only exception to the following the player in question is retiring and therefore does not qualify for a delay, however in all other cases let's assume the player is continuing on the following season. Why not have a deal scenario where the player can choose to be suspended for a much heavier 6 weeks in the new season ( thus lowering his value and the club withholds his pay for the period ) or take the one week, miss the gf option ? Just a thought, I sure it's fatally flawed somewhere..
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,225
- 26,002
- Thread starter
- #32
Too many cans of worms.
Imagine if these players elect to do these weeks during the trials? During the Four Nations? City/Country? etc. etc.
There's a few issues with the current system but the process shouldn't become THAT complicated.
Imagine if these players elect to do these weeks during the trials? During the Four Nations? City/Country? etc. etc.
There's a few issues with the current system but the process shouldn't become THAT complicated.
- Mar 13, 2008
- 6,522
- 2,807
If SBW ends up in a worse position and ends up like McKinnon, he doesn't get to choose what days he can't move his legs. Why the **** should a guy who makes a tackle that puts that prospect in play get to choose when to serve a suspension?
In principle I'm glad Luke is wiped out, but the fact he is playing Josh Reynolds and the Dogs makes me wish he could have played. I'm sure Raelene would agree that it was a brave decision by Luke to challenge the judiciary.
In principle I'm glad Luke is wiped out, but the fact he is playing Josh Reynolds and the Dogs makes me wish he could have played. I'm sure Raelene would agree that it was a brave decision by Luke to challenge the judiciary.
- Jun 20, 2013
- 4,452
- 2,595
Last edited by a moderator:
CaptainHook
NRL Player
- Jun 17, 2013
- 2,990
- 1,303
Interesting idea Huge but as Big Pete said it opens too many cans of worms. There is a lot of chatter in the media about how he doesn't deserve to miss a grand final. The problem is he has priors so maybe he does. It might teach him a lesson. There's also talk about how the Grand Final is not just a regular game. I think the thing is though, once the players get out on the field - it is just another game. Completing sets, making tackles etc. It's only the week that's different.
jarro65
State of Origin Rep
- Jun 26, 2008
- 7,191
- 3,218
Same here.
I mean, you don't get the nickname 'Grub' by accident do you ?
I can't believe the match review committee didn't pick that piece of ordinary play up either ??
