NOT CROSS FORUM NRL 2023 Round 23 Discussion

[Big Pete]

Someone said a Tigers player threw a ball at an official?

I wasn't sure if it was at an official, but Daine Laurie threw a temper tantrum and threw the ball over the sideline when the ref didn't give his team a fresh set of six part-way through the second half.

It was actually a good call from the officials too. Laurie grubbered into Wighton, Wighton didn't extend the foot or show any intent to play at it, so when Laurie dove on it and was tackled it was a turn-over. Laurie got up mouthing off and was marched.

Would have been interesting to see if anything came up on the microphone. I wonder if our detectives at FoxSports will release the audio?

 

[LittleDavey]

I wasn't sure if it was at an official, but Daine Laurie threw a temper tantrum and threw the ball over the sideline when the ref didn't give his team a fresh set of six part-way through the second half.

It was actually a good call from the officials too. Laurie grubbered into Wighton, Wighton didn't extend the foot or show any intent to play at it, so when Laurie dove on it and was tackled it was a turn-over. Laurie got up mouthing off and was marched.

Would have been interesting to see if anything came up on the microphone. I wonder if our detectives at FoxSports will release the audio?

No audio from Hynes. Limited audio from other players swearing at the refs since Walsh. I doubt we'll hear anything from this either. Maybe I'm being too cynical?

 

[Sproj]

No audio from Hynes. Limited audio from other players swearing at the refs since Walsh. I doubt we'll hear anything from this either. Maybe I'm being too cynical?

You aren’t

 

[Foordy]

On the NRL website the have a video clip with the top 10 plays from round 23 ... the number 8 best play of the weekend was the Raiders try that Annesley just admitted the refs fucked up by not calling a forward pass from Wighton

 

[Morkel]

Anusley has now said that, due to the number of dangerous high tackles (and therefore sin bins & send-offs), teams and players have all been warned to lower their targets, or there will be consequences.

I'm just sweating on a silly high tackle from one of our guys that is now going to get massive media scrutiny and we'll lose someone important for an extended period.

 

[Sproj]

Anusley has now said that, due to the number of dangerous high tackles (and therefore sin bins & send-offs), teams and players have all been warned to lower their targets, or there will be consequences.

I'm just sweating on a silly high tackle from one of our guys that is now going to get massive media scrutiny and we'll lose someone important for an extended period.

It’s just stupid. Not all high shots are equal. If a player is upright and the defender launches off the ground, that should be a sin bin / send off but if a player is falling / ducking, that shouldn’t be a sin bin.

 

[Culhwch]

It’s just stupid. Not all high shots are equal. If a player is upright and the defender launches off the ground, that should be a sin bin / send off but if a player is falling / ducking, that shouldn’t be a sin bin.

Makes too much sense to implement.

 

[Morkel]

It’s just stupid. Not all high shots are equal. If a player is upright and the defender launches off the ground, that should be a sin bin / send off but if a player is falling / ducking, that shouldn’t be a sin bin.

To be honest, in light of the CTE stuff, anything high and with force does need to be binned. It's the only way to get it out of the game. You can't tell a player in his '40s that can't remember what he did yesterday that "yeah but you were falling at the time".

Players should aim for the waist or lower chest. Or they start rewarding a one-defender legs tackle. How they do that I don't know, because you should be rewarded for isolating one defender and dominating for a quick PTB.

 

[Sproj]

To be honest, in light of the CTE stuff, anything high and with force does need to be binned. It's the only way to get it out of the game. You can't tell a player in his '40s that can't remember what he did yesterday that "yeah but you were falling at the time".

Players should aim for the waist or lower chest. Or they start rewarding a one-defender legs tackle. How they do that I don't know, because you should be rewarded for isolating one defender and dominating for a quick PTB.

Sure but if a player IS falling at a rate of knots and if he hadn't, he would have been hit in the chest / stomach, a defending player cannot break the laws of physics. I have been saying this for a while now, the NRL is penalising / sinbinning / suspending players who literally could not have done anything different because physically, they cannot react quick enough to change. There has to be an understanding of reality with these decisions. It is a contact sport, players will get hit in the head from time to time. If you want to disobey the laws of physics, then league cannot be played. There has to be some common sense.

Forceful hits to the head that can be avoided should absolutely be banned and cracked down on. Incidental ones that are totally unintentional need to be adjudicated on their merits.

 

[Mr Fourex]

....... There has to be some common sense.

 

[Morkel]

Sure but if a player IS falling at a rate of knots and if he hadn't, he would have been hit in the chest / stomach, a defending player cannot break the laws of physics. I have been saying this for a while now, the NRL is penalising / sinbinning / suspending players who literally could not have done anything different because physically, they cannot react quick enough to change. There has to be an understanding of reality with these decisions. It is a contact sport, players will get hit in the head from time to time. If you want to disobey the laws of physics, then league cannot be played. There has to be some common sense.

Forceful hits to the head that can be avoided should absolutely be banned and cracked down on. Incidental ones that are totally unintentional need to be adjudicated on their merits.

It might take a fundamental adjustment to how the defensive side of the game is played, but that is preferable to either (a) no League, or (b) enough injuries to end up with a class action which again = no League.

 

[JayPee]

If you want to get them to hit lower you have to reward the low tackle which they don't so it will be coached to have more guys catching and wrestling.

 

[Foordy]

If you want to get them to hit lower you have to reward the low tackle which they don't so it will be coached to have more guys catching and wrestling.

Nailed it ... All leg tackling does these days is ensure a quick play the ball ... Wrestling usually prevents that

 

[Sproj]

It might take a fundamental adjustment to how the defensive side of the game is played, but that is preferable to either (a) no League, or (b) enough injuries to end up with a class action which again = no League.

Well you can thank Melbourne for all the wrestling / slow down tactics but I think we are talking about two different things here.

1. Intentional / Preventable high shots - absolutely, go to town on that - you can also take into account players' history with this too
2. Incidental / Unpreventable high shots - this just cannot be stopped, for example player is almost on his knees and himself slides into a defenders arm / shoulder - this just cannot be prevented due to the laws of physics - this just should not be penalised / suspended as a result

An example of the first point is JWH / NAS who have history with head shots / going high in very avoidable situations but not getting suspended for it - this is where class action is absolutely a concern and this is totally on the NRL for allowing these grubs to keep getting away with bad / dangerous head shots.

An example of the second point is Kobe Hetherington last year getting binned and penalised for hitting a guy who was slipping and was like 30cm off the ground - this is not preventable due to, you guessed it, the laws of physics. Note, he is also not a cheap shot merchant / grub.

 

[Silvertails.net]

Talk about hubris: This is Brent Tate talking about the Broncos:
“So I was happy to stay and play for less and earn less because I knew that long term I’d be established… I knew if I made it at the Broncos I’d been an Origin player and could quite possibly be a Test player and I’d get my money down the track.
“And that was the advice I got from Wayne and my manager at the time, let’s just stay here, back yourself and if you can make it here you’re going to make it anywhere."

Perhaps he can explain why it's been 17 years since the Broncos (with a team full of "players who could make it anywhere") have won a premiership?

 

[Big Pete]

Talk about hubris: This is Brent Tate talking about the Broncos:
“So I was happy to stay and play for less and earn less because I knew that long term I’d be established… I knew if I made it at the Broncos I’d been an Origin player and could quite possibly be a Test player and I’d get my money down the track.
“And that was the advice I got from Wayne and my manager at the time, let’s just stay here, back yourself and if you can make it here you’re going to make it anywhere."

Perhaps he can explain why it's been 17 years since the Broncos (with a team full of "players who could make it anywhere") have won a premiership?

It sounds like Tate is talking about his own experience and why players should avoid chasing after the big pay day ala Jayden Nikorima.

Granted, he's missing some context there. Tate sticking with the Broncos endeared him to Bennett who happened to be the Queensland coach at the time. Ergo, Tate received a premature call-up into the team the following year and was picked by Bennett when he became Australian coach over better players (fair to say Brent paid him back in kind, he did score one of the all-time great individual tries).

Also when Tate was negotiating with the Broncos, it wasn't like he was being chased by Souths or the Northern Eagles. He was being chased by Canterbury so he could play alongside his brother-in-law, they were a pretty handy club back then.