Karmichael's Shot On Anasta.

[wally]

Usually i couldnt be bothered with this, but im on holidays and bored stiff....

So if Hunt is Arrogant and over rated, what is SBW?? Oh wait SBW is down to earth and the greatest bloke alive because of his interview on the ever so credible Footy Show :roll:

I think the way SBW shoulder charges is stupid for him because he has his shoulder problems... otherwise they are great, awesome to watch. However that's just me, others may feel different.


So basically what your saying is Hunt should of been prepared for Anasta to fall over infront of him, even though when he lined up for the shot Anasta was in the perfect position. Well why don't F... don't we just turn the game into freaking touch football... "sorry tackling and shoulder chargeing to knock someone off their feet is to dangerous for a contact sport". Bugger me dead, you could be mistaken for thinking that the players in the game are as soft as an under 7's mixed team.

He carried on like he pulled off the shot of the year when he hit a guy in the face and broke his nose ILLEGALLY. Don't insult our intelligence by saying he thought he put on a good shot - you know the difference between hitting someone in the face hard enough to break their nose and a good clean tackle eusa_doh

I've been a massive fan of Hunt since he started and there's a few reasons for it. One is the way that he cares for people on his own team and on the opposition. Many times i've seen players from the opposition team go down and Hunt will be the first person there, also seen him wait in back play with an opposition player until a trainer gets there. He isn't the sort of player to go out and deliveratly go Breaking player's noses and carry on like he's the bee's knee's. That's what made it seemingly clear that he wasn't aware of Anasta's injury and where the force of his hit, hit Anasta. Like i said i was dissapointed at the way he carried on but he wasn't aware, when he did become aware of it he went straight over to Anasta to check on him.

It's also not in Hunt's game to go attacking the head of other's players. There's a difference between accidental and intent. Hell the bloke with the Broken nose that bled for 2 hours has said it's accidental and wants to help him out. The fact that Hunt apologised to Anasta also says a fair bit in itself aswell.

 

[wally]

No i was asking you if you think Hunt is arrogant what do you think SBW is??


and your pretty much giving off the impression that Hunt intended to do it... tell me how is the following saying that you think it was accidental?...

Hunt was trying to take him out regardless of if he slipped or not. He was always going for the shoulder charge, and he cocked his arm the same way that Sonny Bill does.

Sounds pretty much to me like you rekon he had intent...oh wait your next line infact tells us he had intent (according to you).

I don't care if he hit him with his bicep because the intent was there anyway, and guess what? Hitting someone in the face with your bicep is..........ILLEGAL! Accidental or not, it's illegal.

from where i'm standing you can't have intent and have an accident... you either go in there to deliberatly do something against the rules (intent) or you go in there to pull something off that doesn't go as planned e.g Anasta slipping, this then results in something like what would have been a good tackle ending up making contact with the head, or injuring the opposition player.. Accident!

Hunt's hit was clearly accidental and it's unfortunate that it ended up making contact with Anasta's head.

 

[Coxy]

I'm confused.......you keep telling me it was accidental even though I straight up said that I know it was accidental?

All I'm saying is this:

- he carried on like a goose - which he did.

Agree. It's a trend in the game that's been there for donkeys years (that I don't like) that players celebrate when an opponent is injured in a tackle. In saying that, I have no problem with players high fiving etc if a good legitimate tackle dislodges the ball and the ball carrier isn't hurt. That's just celebrating forcing the mistake.

- he hit Anasta high in an illegal tackle - which he did.

This I disagree with. And calling it illegal is opening up the very real prospect of ball carriers falling to their knees before a tackle in the hope of getting some contact with the head and thus a penalty. The Hunt and Graham incidents this week could set a dangerous precedent that encourages that behaviour. Or worse, duck into a head high.

What happened to Anasta was, in my opinion, no worse than what happened between Josh Perry and Ben Ross last weekend (head clash). And bear in mind Ross ended up in hospital.

By your standpoint, Perry should've been charged with striking, and possibly Ross too.

- it was accidental but that doesn't matter - which it doesn't.

It does. To a degree. Accidental head highs, defined by such instances where a player is falling before any contact, worst case scenario should be a penalty. No report, no judiciary. Different story if a player has been hit by one player, and then falls, and a player hits them high as the second defender.

But as a defender I think it's perfectly legitimate to expect your opponent to make contact with you at normal running height. And I think that will be the primary defence in Karmichael's case.

HOWEVER....

I agree with John Lang that shoulder charges should be banned. I've been saying it for ages. They involve no talent, and while they might look good on the highlight reel, most coaches think of them as ineffective. And as we've seen, they can go wrong very badly, and elbows can and do come into it. Anyone remember Gavin Allen's hit on Paul Green in 1994? Shoulder charge gone wrong, superman style, and Allen copped 12 weeks for it after disassembling Green's face.

Shoulder charges have been banned up to under-18s now for that reason, which probably means they'll naturally die out in the next 10 years anyway, and frankly I won't miss them.

Give me one of Tonie Carroll's classical driving tackles in the midriff to a Sonny Bill shoulder charge any day of the week.

 

[Foordy]

I think the Broncos may use the "NOT GUILTY" finding in the Andrew Ryan case last year... in that case, if you remember, Ryan hit Jason Ryles (i think it was) with a high shot to the head knocking Ryles out. in that case he got found not guilty because a Bulldogs player came in low causing Ryles to fall quickly, meaning that what would have been a shoulder high tackle turned in to a head high tackle.

in the Hunt case, Anasta slipped just before impact turning a legitimate tackle into a high tackle. i think that they set a precident with the Ryan case last year and now they hopefully won't have a choice but to clear Hunt to play on Friday [icon_pray.

 

[Coxy]

Coxy, he hit him in the head - contact with the head is illegal now. Had this have been 2005 again it would be a perfectly legal tackle, shoulder to the face and all. Unfortunately for Hunt the rules changed and now as soon as anyone even touches the ball carriers face it is deemed an illegal tackle. I'm not a supporter of the new rule, but it IS the rule.

I don't think Hunt should be suspended by the way. A penalty was all it deserved in my opinion.

Then we actually agree. I was fine with a penalty for it. But not a charge and possible suspension.
However, to be fair they should start penalising head clashes too then, because intentional or not, that's contact with the head of an attacking player.

 

[mrslong]

Was an Awesome shot. Well done K [icon_shady

 

[Major JW Hochstetter]

Coxy, he hit him in the head - contact with the head is illegal now. Had this have been 2005 again it would be a perfectly legal tackle, shoulder to the face and all. Unfortunately for Hunt the rules changed and now as soon as anyone even touches the ball carriers face it is deemed an illegal tackle. I'm not a supporter of the new rule, but it IS the rule.

I don't think Hunt should be suspended by the way. A penalty was all it deserved in my opinion.

That's pretty much a good summary of it. The laws of the game suggest that head contact is illegal under any circumstances and therefore you can't argue against the penalty being given. But the judiciary, looking at whether the individual offence warrants punishment should take into account the nature of the play ie. it was accidental and no party was really at fault. Suspenion would serve no purpose.

 

[Hatchy]

Both Brad Fittler and Anasta said he shouldn't have been put on report. They said there wasn't anything in it.
But unfortunately the judiciary thought it was intentional and gave him a 1-week ban. :evil:

Personally I think and all u guys think as well it wasn't intentional.

 

[Coxy]

Both Brad Fittler and Anasta said he shouldn't have been put on report. They said there wasn't anything in it.
But unfortunately the judiciary thought it was intentional and gave him a 1-week ban. :evil:

Actually no, the judiciary think it was "Careless", which is accidental with culpability basically.

Broncos will argue that K had no culpability as he could not possibly change the events with any of his actions. "Prosecution" will argue he didn't HAVE to use a shoulder.

Judiciary will have to objectively decide whose argument holds more weight and decide accordingly.

 

[bob the Smasher]

Both Brad Fittler and Anasta said he shouldn't have been put on report. They said there wasn't anything in it.
But unfortunately the judiciary thought it was intentional and gave him a 1-week ban. :evil:

Actually no, the judiciary think it was "Careless", which is accidental with culpability basically.

Broncos will argue that K had no culpability as he could not possibly change the events with any of his actions. "Prosecution" will argue he didn't HAVE to use a shoulder.

Judiciary will have to objectively decide whose argument holds more weight and decide accordingly.

So by that logic, isn't evey shoulder charge careless?

NRL want to be careful they dont paint themselves into a corner on this one..

 

[Coxy]

[quote="Bronco_for_life":q9w1tla2]Both Brad Fittler and Anasta said he shouldn't have been put on report. They said there wasn't anything in it.
But unfortunately the judiciary thought it was intentional and gave him a 1-week ban. :evil:

Actually no, the judiciary think it was "Careless", which is accidental with culpability basically.

Broncos will argue that K had no culpability as he could not possibly change the events with any of his actions. "Prosecution" will argue he didn't HAVE to use a shoulder.

Judiciary will have to objectively decide whose argument holds more weight and decide accordingly.

So by that logic, isn't evey shoulder charge careless?

NRL want to be careful they dont paint themselves into a corner on this one..[/quote:q9w1tla2]

Every shoulder charge that makes contact with the head, yes.

It's a dangerous precedent they're looking at setting.

 

[Roger Explosion]

The big dangerous precedent was last year when they gave the green light to the Crocker hit in the Grand Final. The player was taking a kick, there was no sidestep to contend with and the player was completely upright. Crocker was always going to make heavy contact with the head. The NRL decided that was legal.

Don't know how they can hand out suspensions for one-on-one shoulder charges after letting that one go.

 

[Je$ter]

MarkB (Roger Explosion don't do it for me) is on the money. Crockers case is probalby the best precedent that K could use to get off.

If he doens't get off it sets a huge precedent. I don't think the NRL is game enough to do it.

 

[Beachy]

There was also a case last year where Andrew Ryan got off a high tackle charge on Jason Ryles when he dropped suddenly in a tackle. The precedent is there for Hunt to get the charge thrown out tonight (as it should)

 

[Prince Langer]

I see nothing wrong with what Hunt did. I thought it was a joke that he was even penalised.
Anasta fell over. It is his fault.
If the NRL suspends Hunt then i see them as saying if you dive at another players feet, they can be charged with Kicking you. What a joke that would be.
The NRL needs to understand that this is a contact sport and such things are going to happen, especially in wet weather.

 

[Prince Langer]

[quote="Prince Langer":2c1ag0nr]I see nothing wrong with what Hunt did. I thought it was a joke that he was even penalised.

Hunt hit him in the face - according to the rules that is an illegal tackle ,no ifs, buts or maybes. How many penalties do you see where someone comes in and hits someone in the face with a swinging arm as the ball carrier is on their way down from the first person in the tackle? Lots. You cant just use the excuse that the player wasn't where he should have been - he still got hit in the head, and that's not allowed. If players want to run around from now on and drop into tackles so they can intentionally cop an elbow in the face then Frank says 'go for gold' - they'll be the ones whinging when theyre carried off with a newly rearranged face and a nice brace holding their kneck together.[/quote:2c1ag0nr]

I think you have gone completely overboard there.
A swinging arm is one thing, Anasta fell into Hunts shoulder. If Hunts Elbow, forearm or any other part of his 'arm' had of came in contact with his head then it would be a completely different story and perhaps Hunt has a case to answer.
I still maintain that IMO Hunt has done nothing wrong and should not be suspended.
If anything Anasta should be charged with headbutting Hunt. (jokes!)

 

[Nashy]

While he shouldn't be suspended, the chances of him getting suspended tonight are very high. I have a bad feeling he'll be missing the Cowboys match for us.

It's not worth a suspention. NRL need the example, and to show that they are serious. Hunt is going to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

 

[wally]

If he gets suspended it will be the biggest Joke ever... And tbh i hope shit hits the fan if he is.

Didn't the Cowboys fella that wiped out Hodgeson only get 1 week...? His was worse charged at a Grade 4 aswell. And he had a swinging arm didn't he?.... Guess the difference is that Anasta had a broken nose and Hodgeson was seemingly fine..

Gosh the supense of this is killing me.