Illegal shots and the penalty

[QUEENSLANDER]

So after tonights sickening and obviously intentional shot on inglis by barret its got me thinking. Its not fair that we had to play a man down for the entire game. Should barret have been sent off? Maybe. A better solution in my eyes is this. If a player is injured in an illegal tackle, the offender should have to come off the field and be replaced. A neutral doctor should then assess the injured player, and if he says the player can return to the field then the offender can go back on. If however, he can not return, then the offender should sit the rest of the game out also. Not sent off, but not allowed back in the game. Tit for tat. Thoughts?

 

[Mattycat]

Have to disagree slightly. Barrett should have been sent and NSW penalised. It was an intentional swinging arm and I think the refs were soft not to send him off. Basically, we lost a strike player and NSW didn't really get much of a penalty. The only team that will benefit out of Barrett's infringment is the team playing the Sharks on the weekend. Guaranteed - the ref would have sent a QLD player last night if they had done the same thing.

 

[broncosil]

What Barrett did was completely intentional and disgusting. He should've been sent, regardless of any injury caused to Inglis.

He saw that Inglis was tearing them up and sought to end his night illegaly. He should've been sent.

And I agree with Mattycat, if a Qld player did this they would have been sitting in the sheds the whle match.

 

[guppy]

Why are most Queenslanders still paranoid about the Rugby League world, and referees in particular, trying to bring them down? We won the game and the series so when will you get over it? You honestly make the rest of us look dumb.
We're not the underdogs anymore. We're not struggling to gain credibility anymore. QLD and Brisbane are now referred to as the heart and home of Rugby League.

When will you get over your paranoia? It's been going on for far too long.

Barrett isn't an angel by any means, but can you HONESTLY say that he is the kind of grub that would seek to purposely strike another player with the sole intention of removing them from the game?

If you answer yes, you're kidding yourself.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been sent off, but I don't believe there was intent there. It was just careless.

 

[OXY-351]

He saw that Inglis was tearing them up and sought to end his night illegaly.

I disagree. While he did come in with a swinging arm, I don't think he intentionally attacked Inglis's head. A lot of players come in with what looks like swinging arms, when all they are trying to do is wrap up the ball. Unfortunately in this case, Inglis's head wasn't where Barrett expected it to be.

 

[Coxy]

So after tonights sickening and obviously intentional shot on inglis by barret its got me thinking. Its not fair that we had to play a man down for the entire game. Should barret have been sent off? Maybe. A better solution in my eyes is this. If a player is injured in an illegal tackle, the offender should have to come off the field and be replaced. A neutral doctor should then assess the injured player, and if he says the player can return to the field then the offender can go back on. If however, he can not return, then the offender should sit the rest of the game out also. Not sent off, but not allowed back in the game. Tit for tat. Thoughts?

I like it. You should send it to the Roast.

 

[broncosil]

What Barrett did was completely intentional and disgusting. He should've been sent, regardless of any injury caused to Inglis.

He saw that Inglis was tearing them up and sought to end his night illegaly. He should've been sent.

And I agree with Mattycat, if a Qld player did this they would have been sitting in the sheds the whle match.

 

[Coxy]

You can't be sure it was intentional. Inglis was falling/had fallen. It was definitely reckless.

However, the easiest solution is:
1. Put it on report
2. If the "victim" has to be interchanged, they do so without losing an interchange
3. If the "victim" has been interchanged (prior to play resuming) then the instigator should also be interchanged, AND THE INTERCHANGE SHOULD COUNT. Therefore, if they have used all 12 interchanges they play with 13.
4. If the "victim" returns to the field, then the instigator can be subbed back on. If not, then no.

Result:
16 on 16
Player on report
Instigator's team loses an interchange

I think that's perfect!

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

So basically what i said coxy! I do think he shouldve been sent, but they would never do that in an origin so this is a more black and white rule. I think its important that a neutral doctor make the ruling tho, otherwise we will just see teams fake injuries to rub out higher profile players on the other team

 

[Coxy]

So basically what i said coxy! I do think he shouldve been sent, but they would never do that in an origin so this is a more black and white rule. I think its important that a neutral doctor make the ruling tho, otherwise we will just see teams fake injuries to rub out higher profile players on the other team

Yes, exactly what you said! I was just pointing out why it's so good.

I don't like send offs at all.

However, I don't think having an independent doctor really matters. If your player stays off injured it means you're down to 16 players as well. And you can't do it unless that higher profile player actually does something illegal to you.

I can't see the fault in it.

 

[mrslong]

Well Barrett had a few words to say in Inglis's ear as he hit him so he knew exactly where his head was as he knocked his block off. It was disgusting. I just hope it's not broken cos I want to see him play in 3 weeks time.

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

Yeah good point coxy. If the player puts himself in that position then too bad if it gets exploited a bit. Dont be a grub in the first place

 

[spoonbled]

if an illegal shot injures a guy for the rest of the game i wouldnt mind seeing a rule where the 18th man can take his place so the team is not disadvantaged.

 

[Steve]

Definitely reckless but I doubt there will ever be another send of during SoO.

Should have gotten ten in the bin. I would have been happy with that.

 

[Coxy]

Yeah good point coxy. If the player puts himself in that position then too bad if it gets exploited a bit. Dont be a grub in the first place

Only issue I can think of is teams exploiting it.

ie, every high tackle, stay down and act injured...that's usually enough to get the ref to put it on report and penalise. Then you get a free sub and force your opponent to take a sub too.

Particularly useful if you know your opposition is already in sub trouble.

 

[Beachy]

Barrett isn't an angel by any means, but can you HONESTLY say that he is the kind of grub that would seek to purposely strike another player with the sole intention of removing them from the game?

If you answer yes, you're kidding yourself.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been sent off, but I don't believe there was intent there. It was just careless.

He clenched his fist and swung his arm at Inglis' head. There is no way known that it was careless. Barrett himself has pleaded guilty to a reckless tackle charge, so obviously even he didn't think it was careless.

 

[mrslong]

At least the perp of the illegal high shot should get the minimum the victim gets. IE Inglis is out for 4 weeks, so should Barrett.

 

[Dexter]

So after tonights sickening and obviously intentional shot on inglis by barret its got me thinking. Its not fair that we had to play a man down for the entire game. Should barret have been sent off? Maybe. A better solution in my eyes is this. If a player is injured in an illegal tackle, the offender should have to come off the field and be replaced. A neutral doctor should then assess the injured player, and if he says the player can return to the field then the offender can go back on. If however, he can not return, then the offender should sit the rest of the game out also. Not sent off, but not allowed back in the game. Tit for tat. Thoughts?

I sent that exact idea in once B4 about 2 years ago and it got pulled apart ala what coxy has pointed out as a possible exploitation.
Personally I still like the idea and I would add a ten minute sin bin to it as well for this type of foul play so the offending side would have to play with 12 players for a bit.