Grand Final - Sea Eagles vs Warriors (Post-Match starts pg 4)

[Browny]

How about if a player gets hit illegally and can't play on you can sub in the 18th man

 

[Jeba]

How about if a player gets hit illegally and can't play on you can sub in the 18th man

I think there was a call for that when Barrett took out Inglis with a cheap shot in the 2009 Origin. And I think something has to be implemented. Why should 1 team be forced to play a man down as a result of intentional foul play from the opposition, who get to play on with their full 17? It's ridiculous. I know there's an argument for 'Thats just Rugby League' but fair dinkum, when there is clear intent surely the blokes just gotta be sent off?? Or even if he is no longer allowed to participate in the game but is able to be replaced, I could cop that.

 

[OXY-351]

Perhaps an idea could be floated that the player who committs the offence goes off the field for as long as the tackled player is off the field, or 10 minutes, whichever is longer.

Not sure that's the best idea though as it's then really up to the victims club to determine how long the punishment is for.

If an oppositions star player took out one of your nuffies, you'd just be tempted to say your nuffie was too injured to return so the opposition star couldn't come back on either.

I mean if it was a Brisbane vs Parra game and Lockyer accidently tackled Paul Carriage high, you'd pretty much just leave Paul Carriage off for the rest of the season in the hope you might win.

 

[Coxy]

I think there was a call for that when Barrett took out Inglis with a cheap shot in the 2009 Origin. And I think something has to be implemented. Why should 1 team be forced to play a man down as a result of intentional foul play from the opposition, who get to play on with their full 17? It's ridiculous. I know there's an argument for 'Thats just Rugby League' but fair dinkum, when there is clear intent surely the blokes just gotta be sent off?? Or even if he is no longer allowed to participate in the game but is able to be replaced, I could cop that.

Yeah, and on the counter side I reckon in a case as bad as that, the player should be "out of the game". That is, they can't be subbed back in, but the team can still have 13 on the field.
So the "victim" can be replaced by the 18th man, leaving them with 17, but the perp team is stuck with 16.

And I still think they should lose an interchange as a result.

It's still 13-on-13, but you have one less bench player, and one less interchange. I think that's a fair punishment for bad foul play.

 

[Dexter]

In the modern game the interchange is so important. At the moment if there's a reported offence, the "victim" gets to be replaced without it counting.
Maybe we can take that a step further and if you get reported, your team loses an interchange.

Of course, then we'd have to change this ridiculous situation where a tiny slap to the face gets reviewed by the video referee and results in a report...

Had this exact discussion on the train after the game, I think 5 minute sin bin or forced interchange for 5 or 10 mins plus 1 more interchange deduction.


I haven't seen the replay yet as I just got in from Sydney. We had a good view from high up in half way and no doubt the refs f@cked the Warriors over in the first half the same as us.
Manly are a good footy side without getting such massive calls fall their way. Even some of the Manly supporters were very sheepish after the DCE try.

The ref actually put the whistle to his mouth then thought Manly were going to score and he could check it, just a real game changer. Other crap decisions apart from the lead up to the first try were Maloneys knock on from the scrum in the first few mins and DCE pro foul after the warriors kicked ahead in the first half.

They just got nothing. Also both sides were off side a bit but particularly G Stewart, Watmough and Falon.

Having said that the Warriors never looked likely and just played too conservatively, their kicking game was terrible as well, Stewart was standing over on toward Robinsons wing and the kick was always on much straighter but they just kept trying to find a corner and found Manly players instead. Bad coaching IMO.

 

[Je$ter]

Yeah, and on the counter side I reckon in a case as bad as that, the player should be "out of the game". That is, they can't be subbed back in, but the team can still have 13 on the field.
So the "victim" can be replaced by the 18th man, leaving them with 17, but the perp team is stuck with 16.

And I still think they should lose an interchange as a result.

It's still 13-on-13, but you have one less bench player, and one less interchange. I think that's a fair punishment for bad foul play.

I like that. Send off is too harsh as is because like it was said 60 minutes with 12 players is hard - albeit maybe fair when it's elbow bullshit like Fatty Boom Ba did if you are udmb enough to do that your team should be crippled.

 

[m1c]

Referees are obviously reluctant to send a player off. It bugs me they baulk at this because they don't want to affect the game, yet will happily blow 3 consecutive penalties handing one side a huge leg up. IMO docking interchanges could also be an alternative. Of course this is something you don't want to bugger up so it should be the video refs call.

I certainly think forcing the offending player to sit the game out, whilst allowing a replacement, has merit.

 

[mrslong]

Just thought I'd point out that the ref's gave us a pretty handy advantage in the 2006 GF.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Just thought I'd point out that the ref's gave us a pretty handy advantage in the 2006 GF.

Rubbish..

 

[mrslong]

Rubbish..

Ask anyone not a Broncos supporter. THere were a few calls that definitely went our way. The "strip" on Berro wasn't a strip, he lost the ball. Hodges knocked the ball into touch, but we got the feed.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I don't recall either of these moments..

 

[mrslong]

Might be time to re-watch the mighty 2006 Grand Final then. :rockon::cheers:

 

[Coxy]

The only moment that matters:

 

[Meat77]

Notice how Gallop looks genuinely happy in that shot?

 

[mrslong]

No-one was telling him he owed them an apology.

 

[Anonymous person]

Just another thought random thought - 2007 Manly v Storm GF, Sika Manu (or Adam Blair) took out with a high shot on Brett Stewart and didn't get sent off. Effectively ended Manly.

thats not what happened - Crocker absolutely smashed Stewart in a 100% legal tackle, and he was taken from the field and didnt return.

 

[subsbligh]

thats not what happened - Crocker absolutely smashed Stewart in a 100% legal tackle, and he was taken from the field and didnt return.

It wasn't a very sportsmanlike tackle. He took his shot, I suppose like Hodges did two weeks ago on Morris.

To those talking about the Broncos 2006 GF win, I think you missed the most controversial of all - the Hoffman (or King) no try where the refs ruled there was a double knock on.

IMO, if the Warriors win, Manly would have been as adamant about the Kieran Foran no-try as the Storm fans were about the above no try.

It's funny how my loyalties change. I remember watching the 2007 GF in a hotel room screaming at the Storm at the height of my Broncos/Storm hatred, and cheering on Manly and beying for blood when Stewart was taken out. Now I've done a 180 on Manly.

 

[Anonymous person]

It wasn't a very sportsmanlike tackle. He took his shot, I suppose like Hodges did two weeks ago on Morris.

not very sportsman like? how? he wasnt injured, he wasnt signalling to the ref or anything.....he caught a kick and was running it back and crocker smashed him fair and square. nothing like hodges dropping the shoulder on an obviously injured player.

even though i love the Broncos i disliked how we won the 2006 premiership, because it was so tainted by blatant refereeing errors, every single one of which went in our favour. to me it felt like we were gifted the premiership. would we have won it with a fair refereeing display? maybe. but we didnt.