LOLZ, Farah owned by Anthony Watts

[Anonymous person]

By the current rules, it's probably not a dominant tackle, but I think the rules need to be changed to give some sort of reward for low tackles in some circumstances. Take Kimmorleys covering tackle on Inglis in the Origin for example. It was a magnificent tackle, but had Kimmorley not put Inglis over the sideline, he would have basically had to release him straight away. Sometimes I feel that there is too much emphasis on attack these days. In that instance, Kimmorley should have been rewarded for making such a tackle

I disagree. Why should someone making a tackle be allowed to hold down the attacker for any longer than in any other tackle? In my opinion they need to scrap the 'dominant/surrender tackle' rule and rule it the way it should be - regardless of how good/bad/effective the tackle was, if you hold on longer than however many seconds its a penalty.

Just because Kimmorley made a nice tackle on Inglis shouldn't mean he can hold him down for a few seconds longer to get his team on side. What about the fact that Inglis just fended off 2 guys, ran 40m, and put his team on the offensive? Shouldn't he be allowed to get a regular play of the ball away?

 

[Dexter]

[quote="OXY-351":2205mm78]By the current rules, it's probably not a dominant tackle, but I think the rules need to be changed to give some sort of reward for low tackles in some circumstances. Take Kimmorleys covering tackle on Inglis in the Origin for example. It was a magnificent tackle, but had Kimmorley not put Inglis over the sideline, he would have basically had to release him straight away. Sometimes I feel that there is too much emphasis on attack these days. In that instance, Kimmorley should have been rewarded for making such a tackle

I disagree. Why should someone making a tackle be allowed to hold down the attacker for any longer than in any other tackle? In my opinion they need to scrap the 'dominant/surrender tackle' rule and rule it the way it should be - regardless of how good/bad/effective the tackle was, if you hold on longer than however many seconds its a penalty.

Just because Kimmorley made a nice tackle on Inglis shouldn't mean he can hold him down for a few seconds longer to get his team on side. What about the fact that Inglis just fended off 2 guys, ran 40m, and put his team on the offensive? Shouldn't he be allowed to get a regular play of the ball away?[/quote:2205mm78]


Absolutely agree, scrap the dominant tackle and go back to the way it was. Both players are on the ground both have to get to their feet.
If the refs ruled by the book (get to your feet, play the ball sqaure, touch it with your foot) the dominant garbage would never have come in.

 

[OXY-351]

[quote="OXY-351":g6aizrr6]By the current rules, it's probably not a dominant tackle, but I think the rules need to be changed to give some sort of reward for low tackles in some circumstances. Take Kimmorleys covering tackle on Inglis in the Origin for example. It was a magnificent tackle, but had Kimmorley not put Inglis over the sideline, he would have basically had to release him straight away. Sometimes I feel that there is too much emphasis on attack these days. In that instance, Kimmorley should have been rewarded for making such a tackle

I disagree. Why should someone making a tackle be allowed to hold down the attacker for any longer than in any other tackle? In my opinion they need to scrap the 'dominant/surrender tackle' rule and rule it the way it should be - regardless of how good/bad/effective the tackle was, if you hold on longer than however many seconds its a penalty.

Just because Kimmorley made a nice tackle on Inglis shouldn't mean he can hold him down for a few seconds longer to get his team on side. What about the fact that Inglis just fended off 2 guys, ran 40m, and put his team on the offensive? Shouldn't he be allowed to get a regular play of the ball away?[/quote:g6aizrr6]

Well I guess we are sort of arguing for the same point. I'm saying Kimmorely shouldn't have been disadvantaged just because he did a low tackle instead of a high "dominant" tackle. If you got rid of the dominant tackle and allowed players to hold down for a certain period of time regarldess of the type of tackle as you are suggesting, then Kimmorely wouldn't have been disadvantaged.

 

[OXY-351]

No, as I said I can cope with them if we stop suspending guys for minor little high tackles, or we suspend players who fight.

I think the biggest joke is that Farrah and Watts have both been charged by the video review committee, yet no-one from the origin who threw punches was cited, and the only guy who was got off on appeal. And the officials try and say that there isn't one set of rules for origin and another for club footy.

 

[Coxy]

No, as I said I can cope with them if we stop suspending guys for minor little high tackles, or we suspend players who fight.

I think the biggest joke is that Farrah and Watts have both been charged by the video review committee, yet no-one from the origin who threw punches was cited, and the only guy who was got off on appeal. And the officials try and say that there isn't one set of rules for origin and another for club footy.

Yep, that's disgusting in the extreme.

As for dominant etc, that came about by different interpretations and trends in the way the game was played.

Remember Super League in 1997? Referees were hell bent on making players release ASAP, hence we had super quick play the balls and the Broncos benefited greatly by having a massive roll on with their forwards.

It steadily slowed down and referees showed more and more leniency, to the point in 2002 that the Roosters just monstered teams with 4 and 5 in the tackle and take an eternity to peel off. Then they'd rush up and do it again. Won them a premiership.

That's what brought in the dominant shit.

Agree with Anonymous Person. Get rid of this shit, and have a time limit that all referees enforce, whether it be 2 seconds, 3 seconds, whatever, from the moment the ref calls held. If any player hasn't started to roll off/let go in that time, penalise.

Add to that that I think the markers should be allowed to stand within a 1 square metre area in front of the play the ball. ie, they don't have to be completely square. There's too many penalties for that, and dummyhalf running is boring as shit to watch.

 

[The Brizz]

I agree Coxy, there should be either or both a time limit and a limit to how many can engage an attacker. The game has gone downhill in so many aspects its not funny and the way the ruck is played now is a huge part of it.

 

[Coxy]

Translation: I want Farah's lebanese cucumber up my butt.

 

[lynx000]

No, as I said I can cope with them if we stop suspending guys for minor little high tackles, or we suspend players who fight.

Valid point. I thought it was a joke yesterday that Watts didn't even get penalised for the initial fight. I'm guessing this was purely because the tigers had scored a try, and there was no rule allowign for the refs to penalise. It couldn't be considered an 8 point try could it?

On the high tackle thing, it also struck me yesterday that by being so qucik to penalise players for holding on too long when doing low tackles, they are basically forcing players to tackle high. If you tackle someone high (especially if called a dominant tackle), you are allowed to hold them down for a reasonable time, but if you tackle someone around the legs (especially in a covering/sliding tackle), you are expected to release them straight away. When was the last time such a tackle was called dominant. There is no incentive to tackle people low these days, so players are aiming higher, thus reducing the margin for error. The NRL really needs to look at implementing some rules to reward players for low tackles.

Absolutely. And if you get the legs originally and then try and hold down higher up, you're "working them".

On the initial Watts fight, no, it couldn't be an 8 point try because the wording on that is that the foul has to occur in the act of scoring a try. "The act of scoring a try" is literally defined as forcing the ball, and it would have to be on the try scorer.

Frankly it's a dumb rule. I think any penalty that can be ruled on the try scoring play should also be able to be awarded. So they would've got the try, the conversion and then take a shot at goal from where the fight occurred.

Plus I reckon the penalty shot should be optional. Take a shot at 2 points, or you can take a penalty kick from half way instead of a kickoff, so instead of getting the ball on your own goal line from the kick off, you're potentially on the attack again 20 metres out.

I think that would be a really good rule change Coxy, I agree. Give the attacking the team the option of keeping the pressure on.

 

[lynx000]

El Masri is very popular, he has a huge amount of supporters, just look at how many comments and congratulations he got on his retirement announcement and having a page on the official NRL website. http://www.nrl.com/NRLHome/HazemElMasri ... fault.aspx for his retirement and I've spoke to him in person before, he's also from the same hometown as me so of course I like him, he's done a lot for the community and is a great role model so I can't see reason not to admire him :) Farah on the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of Farah, I think he's an awesome player and a decent guy but that's it.

Do you ever get sick of how often he takes the bait Coxy lolz. You must be exhausted from throwing him back in all of the time.

 

[lynx000]

Lol Coxy. watts hit farah when he didn't see it coming. Of course he would fall like that. Farah got his square up absolutely smashed Watts!

Price got smashed and knocked out cold in a 1 on 1 fight by white! Lolz! Sad

Wow, two trout with the one bait.

 

[Jeba]

Lol Coxy. watts hit farah when he didn't see it coming. Of course he would fall like that. Farah got his square up absolutely smashed Watts!

Price got smashed and knocked out cold in a 1 on 1 fight by white! Lolz! Sad

And while we're at it, here's Rocky's new tatoo.

 

[Clintos]

Bit too much bicep credit there don't you think?

 

[Black Philip]

Suppose that depends if he's right handed lol