Illegal shots and the penalty

[Twiztid]

Isn't that how Jarrad Hayne or Karmichael Hunt got off charges or received a lesser charge because they went into a tackle or charge down or something with his eyes closed and connected with the head of the player.

I think closing of the eyes is more so the embracing for the impact.

I agree with the regards to the plead.

 

[HITMAN82]

I think everything is just fine with the current system. An occasional game-ending injury shouldn't send everyone into panic mode. If it appeared to be happening in every other game, then sure maybe some changes should be made... but it's not.
Barrett wouldn't have been instructed to take him out of the game or anything - if you're going to nominate a hitman, you certainly don't risk having such a pivotal player sent off / suspended.
The hit was pretty innocuous anyway; Origin is meant to be brutal. I'm a Blue supporter and still used to love TC's rampant thuggery and ruthless shots.
Was also great to see a bit of quality biff in game 2.

 

[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.

[icon_lol1. WTF? He pleaded guilty to a reckless so that means it was deliberate? Ooook dude.

He pleaded guilty to a reckless because he wanted to take the 2 weeks suspension and get on with it. He would have got more weeks if he contested the charge.

**** you have some comprehension issues.

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

 

[gUt]

The hit was pretty innocuous anyway; Origin is meant to be brutal. I'm a Blue supporter and still used to love TC's rampant thuggery and ruthless shots.
Was also great to see a bit of quality biff in game 2.

Exactly. Why are we all so horrified when something tough happens on a football field?! Especially in Origin? To be sure it was a accidental, penalizable shot but for those who are acting like it's the worst thing ever seen on the field, please.

 

[Coxy]

Meh. IMO the only issue is that the act left Queensland with 16 men, NSW had 17 still...but now the Sharks get punished for it and Queensland gets no real pay back for it.

I think the system sucks.

Whether they implement a sin bin for on report foul play or some of the other ideas mentioned in here I don't know, but the current method of just putting them on report and giving the victim a free interchange isn't good enough IMO.

 

[OXY-351]

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.

[icon_lol1. WTF? He pleaded guilty to a reckless so that means it was deliberate? Ooook dude.

Reading > You

 

[OXY-351]

Meh. IMO the only issue is that the act left Queensland with 16 men, NSW had 17 still...but now the Sharks get punished for it and Queensland gets no real pay back for it.

Exactly. The people gaining and losing out of all of this weren't even involved in the game the other night. That Sharks are losing out because they won't have Barrett available for 2 weeks, and the 2 teams playing the Sharks for the next two weeks get the advantage of playing them without one of their star players.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but the current scenario sucks balls more than NSW

 

[gUt]

We all agree on that. An emergency replacement (18th man) might be the way to go but could be exploited. It gets back to QLDER's suggestion I guess.

 

[Dexter]

[quote="The Rock":2cnfqe3k]

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.

Haha just read over what you said and sorry LOL. Everyone is against me these days, I automatically thought you were too LOLZ. [icon_lol1.[/quote:2cnfqe3k]


Just for the record Rock I am not against you, just don't agree in this instance. icon_thumbs_u

I actually agree with you re Farrahs game (except for that pass). He played quite well overall but was badly restricted in passing.
You are the closest thing to Frank the Tank these days and I miss Frank a bit always good for a read.

Maybe you could get a rhyming name too like Rock the .....hmmmm , nothing springs to mind I'll keep working on it. [icon_razz1

 

[HITMAN82]

It's just one of the dangers of having rep quality players in your team. They may get injured or suspended fulfilling that duty. There isn't much within reason that can be done about it.

From memory, you can't sin bin someone for a dirty tackle correct, only for professional fouls? Maybe that is all that we need to change; I don't think a send off for a tackle like Barrett's is fair... but maybe 5 or 10 in the bin for an injurious illegal tackle would be more suitable?

 

[HITMAN82]

But if anything like that was introduced, they would REALLY have to come down hard on divers.

 

[Hamm.0]

I don't like the idea at all.

There is too fine a line between illegal tackles and intentional illegal tackles. In an era where we can't even get ref's to agree on simple on field rulings, how can they start ruling on the 'intent" of perpetrators of illegal tackles?

IMO, the best solution is a return to the old rules, whereby referee's could use the 10 minute sinbin for infringements. Why this isn't allowed now is as ludicrous as persisting with the 10 metre defensive line.

End result would have been;
- Inglis injured with a free interchange used to substitute him, and
- Barrett sent off for 10 minutes, therefore giving QLD 10 minutes to try and capitalise on the infringement.

Fair as can be.

 

[Nashy]

I agree, Barrett's effort to try and hurt him LEGALLY went wrong. It was a stupid and careless attempt.

How come no one has mentioned Cam Smith's elbow to the head of Peter Wallace? Was it as bad as it looked on the big screen or what?

Was that the one where Wallace moved his body in a downward motion to dodge a tackle?

Even the NSW commentators agreed it was a nothing incident.