Illegal shots and the penalty

[Coxy]

A possible extension of it:
- perp gets substituted
- incident on report gets reviewed IMMEDIATELY by a video referee in the box to see if it is "charge worthy" (they have the criteria). If in their opinion it warrants further action, then the player stays substituted off.
- if the video referee is of the opinion that the tackle will not attract a charge, the message goes down that the player can be substituted back on without incurring an interchange loss

Result:
- if it's bad and warrants a charge, they lose an interchange
- if it's not bad, then they have used 1 interchange but can get their player back on

Every option has its negatives. Even a sin bin for 10 minutes. What if it was just a great acting job and there was nothing in it? You've played with 12 men for no reason.

At least if you get the chance to sub them off, get it reviewed and they make a call whether you can come back or not, that would help.

In addition, if they do decide it's a charge, then the time spent on the sideline in that game counts toward their suspension.

eg: Barrett was subbed off at the 20 minute mark. he missed 60 minutes of the game - 75% - 75 points.
The charge attracts a 250 point penalty. Take away the 75 points already served = 175. He misses 1 game plus a 75 point carryover.

 

[Dexter]

Yeah the possibilty of someone taking a dive is there, but no more than a team picking a nuffy to go out and take out a player knowing he will only be subbed and still his side is no worse off numbers wise but better off if you take out a Locky or Cam smith.
There is no perfect solution but last night proved the current system of refs being under pressure not to F@ck up a big game with a send off is wrong.

 

[Coxy]

Yep, another option is if it's on report, it gets reviewed immediately while play goes on (as I said) and if they feel it's charge-worthy, then he gets subbed off for the rest of the game and costs his team an interchange.

Only issue then is if an incident happens in the last 5 minutes there's no time to check it.

 

[Dexter]

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.

Have a look at this picture, see one hand is open as it should be making a tackle the other hand is a clenched fist as it would be when throwing a punch, that is intent.
If you don't think it is you are kidding yourself.
If you watch the replay you can clearly see he has his fist clenched from the time he ***** his arm, once again clearly intent.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/origin/not-b ... 83313.html

 

[gUt]

It is a bit of a weird thing that the Sharks' next two opponents get the benefit of Barrett's over-aggressive and reckless ACCIDENTAL high shot on Inglis.

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

As i said in my initial post, a neutral doctor could assess the injured player and determine if he can return. No chance of exploiting the rule then

 

[Dexter]

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.

Yes, INTENT to HURT. Not intent to break his jaw and risk suspension.

Get your hand off it.



Have a look at this picture, see one hand is open as it should be making a tackle the other hand is a clenched fist as it would be when throwing a punch, that is intent.
If you don't think it is you are kidding yourself.
If you watch the replay you can clearly see he has his fist clenched from the time he ***** his arm, once again clearly intent.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/origin/not-b ... 83313.html

Yes, Intent to HURT. Not intent to smash him in the head and risk suspension. There's a difference.

There are plenty of ways to hurt a bloke especially when he is on the ground with his back turned. Barrett could have put a great legal shot on him but chose the swinging arm at the head. From years of playing and watching the game I can tell you that was just an old fashioned cheap shot.
That opinion is backed by Gould, Sterlo and every NSW journo I have read today.

 

[gUt]

Seriously, he saw Inglis on the ground and he wanted to just smash the shit out of him, but do you honestly think that Barrett went into that tackle thinking, "Ok, I am going to smash him as hard as I can around the head with my arm and hope to knock him out so we can get him out of this game......."

Are you suggesting that people get accidentally hurt in a high intensity contact sport?

 

[Dexter]

Oh your opinion is backed by Gould, Sterlo and every NSW journo - You must be right then. Silly me.

Seriously, he saw Inglis on the ground and he wanted to just smash the shit out of him, but do you honestly think that Barrett went into that tackle thinking, "Ok, I am going to smash him as hard as I can around the head with my arm and hope to knock him out so we can get him out of this game......."

Honestly?

I couldn't care less what scenario went through his mind, he cocked his arm formed a fist and threw it at his head, please, that is as deliberate as you can get. Its a bit late to stand back afterwards and say shit I had no idea that could break his jaw.

 

[Playboy Bunny]

This is Twiztid.

I have seen plenty of hits like this in Origin. Tonnie Carroll used to do plenty in his day. The difference here was Barrett connected flush, instead of it being just a solid shot to the player submitting on the ground.

If it did connect and Inglis didn't get hurt there would be no fuss what so ever. I don't think Barrett went into it to take Inglis out, but more so put a hard shot on him to say "We mean business".

 

[Dexter]

If you're asking do I think Barrett went on the field to put him out, of course not.

I don't think Barret is particularly grubby as a player either.

That incident however was no accident of football. Like I said above cocked arm clenched fist etc etc. call it a brain snap or whatever but IMO it was deliberate.

 

[Professor47]

The plan sounds great but it WILL be exploited. More importantly it could get more complicated and really slow the flow of the game.
It COULD work though and it seems fair but sometimes you just have to cop it.

On the other hand, I don't understand why we can't use the 5min sin bin! 10 is too harsh.

 

[Browny]

My idea = Inglis is knocked out illegally, independant doctor assesses him if he is unable to play on the 18th man becomes available to use to get the right number of people on the side.

Barrett can then be put on report, sent off, penalised or whatever.

 

[gUt]

Seriously, he saw Inglis on the ground and he wanted to just smash the shit out of him, but do you honestly think that Barrett went into that tackle thinking, "Ok, I am going to smash him as hard as I can around the head with my arm and hope to knock him out so we can get him out of this game......."

Are you suggesting that people get accidentally hurt in a high intensity contact sport?

I know that players can go with intent to take someone's head off - I've seen it many times.

But think about the Barrett incident. And think about what sort of player Barrett is. Never usually the one to go out of his way to intentionally take someone's head off. In his first Origin game for ages, behind on the scoreboard, NSW down 1-0 in the series, Barrett's Sharks team 2nd last on the ladder...do you really think his intent was to put an illegal shot on Inglis with the possibility of being sent off and with the CERTAINTY of being put on report?

In the moden day game, are you serious?

Fire up son! [icon_lol1. I am on your side in this one.

 

[gUt]

That incident however was no accident of football. Like I said above cocked arm clenched fist etc etc. call it a brain snap or whatever but IMO it was deliberate.

The arm and fist were cocked/clenched alright, but they weren't meant to make contact with the jaw.

 

[bob the Smasher]

LOL oh the old 'it's not his go'

Funny how it never seems to be anyones go.

He meant it alright.

 

[Twiztid]

LOL oh the old 'it's not his go'

Funny how it never seems to be anyones go.

He meant it alright.

So if that is the case then so did Smith, Hannant, Croker, Stewart, O'Donnell and Watmough.

Watch it again Inglis was inches from getting to his feet and he slipped. I haven't been able to get footage to work on here but I am sure Barrett's eyes were closed as he went into the tackle, if that is the case then you can't say it was deliberate to attack the head because if Inglis sat up just a bit more it would have been shoulder first and the fist would have hit Inglis's chests, which happens in many big hit tackles like that.

 

[Coxy]

Who closes their eyes going into a tackle?

Anyway, he pleaded guilty to reckless...so it wasn't accidental, it wasn't deliberate, it was somewhere in between.