NOT CROSS FORUM NRL 2023 Round 25 Discussion

[Browny]

Annersley says it’s fine.

 

[BroncsFan]

Annersley says it’s fine.

"Counting is hard you guys... " Annersley probably

But also ... suck shit souths!!

 

[mrslong]

Atkins has really gone backwards this year.

 

[Fozz]

Annersley says it’s fine.

There was a soft signal for six again that looked like Atkins wasn't doing anything. It was an optical illusion. But under the game circumstances, he should've sin binned Reece walsh.

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

"Counting is hard you guys... " Annersley probably

But also ... suck shit souths!!

"If this game was played in a different dimension with different rules then we can't blame the ref. We will not be apologising.

Also, latrell is such a top bloke, have you heard? Mick ennis told me. And we are going to pay jwh's fine to thank him for his time. And flegler suspended, this will be one of our last chances until he cleans up his act at the dolphins despite playing the exact same way, like TPJ"

 

[BroncsFan]

**** sake now these idiots in charge are considering a rule change for the bounced ball situation in the Manly game.

Do not **** with the bounced ball and mid air tackle... simply state that taking a player's legs out like that is a dangerous position.

It put Garrick in a vulnerable position and the defender has a duty of care to not come through and take a player's legs out like that.... job fucking done!!

The rule is already there for kickers... I dont know why that wasn't applied in this situation anyway.

Fucking media are going on about the wrong aspect of the situation and these morons in charge will create a stupid fucking reactionary rule now.

V’landys reveals NRL will consider rule change as shock Manly no-call exposes loophole

V’landys reveals NRL will consider rule change as shock Manly no-call exposes loophole

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Sproj]

**** sake now these idiots in charge are considering a rule change for the bounced ball situation in the Manly game.

Do not **** with the bounced ball and mid air tackle... simply state that taking a player's legs out like that is a dangerous position.

It put Garrick in a vulnerable position and the defender has a duty of care to not come through and take a player's legs out like that.... job fucking done!!

The rule is already there for kickers... I dont know why that wasn't applied in this situation anyway.

Fucking media are going on about the wrong aspect of the situation and these morons in charge will create a stupid fucking reactionary rule now.

V’landys reveals NRL will consider rule change as shock Manly no-call exposes loophole

V’landys reveals NRL will consider rule change as shock Manly no-call exposes loophole

www.foxsports.com.au

This is NRL 101.

 

[Morkel]

As soon as you make the onus on the defender in that situation, you'll see players jumping all over the place. If there's a pass coming to you and you're about to get smashed? Jump to catch it and earn a penalty. Diving for the corner and end up in a dangerous position? That's on the defender, penalty try. It opens up too much chance of being exploited, and you know that the refs are going to interpret those calls towards certain teams.

The tackled mid-air rule is only for catching it on the full, if the ball bounces and you jump for it, that's at your own risk.

 

[Super Freak]

Mitchell one game ban for his cheap shot.

Will miss the Roosters game as Souths have the bye. A must-win game for the Rabbitohs if they want to play finals.

 

[Morkel]

Mitchell one game ban for his cheap shot.

Will miss the Roosters game as Souths have the bye. A must-win game for the Rabbitohs if they want to play finals.

Should really be more, but it's better than a fucking fine **cough cough JFH **.

 

[Midean]

Is there a team that isn't favoured according to you. It was soft. Will get a fine if that.

You are a clown.
1 - 2 games.
Should have been sent from the field.

Intent matters.

 

[Morkel]

The issue with Mitchell is that he has been painted as some kind of inspiration for indigenous kids. Probably because of his talent, also because Souths seem to have a few youth programs geared that way. And look, he probably is inspirational for those kids, the same way JT was, Inglis was, etc. But unfortunately, it means that the media are loathe to point out the severity of his grubby antics (will it be taken as racist?), but his talent means that no one seems to have pulled him in to line to say that his actions like this are not acceptable, not for a high profile player, and certainly not for someone who is supposed to be a role model. But everyone just makes excuses for him - JD has come out and said he doesn't need to change anything about his game, so then Mitchell himself comes out and says he won't be changing anything, and here we are where he can't help himself and goes in for a cheap shot because he's losing. Someone, a long time ago, needed to put him in line but it just never happened.

 

[JayPee]

You are a clown.
1 - 2 games.
Should have been sent from the field.

Intent matters.

View attachment 23607

No and no.

 

[Organix]

You are a clown.
1 - 2 games.
Should have been sent from the field.

Intent matters.

View attachment 23607

If a picture could talk, this one would say
"Hrghgrghrgh"

 

[Midean]

When was the last time a player was sent to the bin with no explanation from the ref?

Because Mitchell got straight sent, no talk, no reason, just pointed to the bin and walked him. (i initially thought he had been sent because of this)
No backtalk from Mitchell, no captain running over to question it, Mitchell just started walking to the bin because he knew it was a dog shot, just like every person on the field including the ref knew it was a dog shot.

I think intent should have more impact than accidental hits.

We have seen blokes sent from the field this year (binned as well) for accidents.
I can understand binning a player for accidental dangerous contact, but i think being sent from the field should be used in cases like Latrells where there is clear intent to commit a dangerous offense.

Accidental head contact because of carelessness = bin.
Intentional head contact because of maliciousness = sent.

 

[Silvertails.net]

In case you missed the news, Garrick suffered a broken back in that tackle which was deemed not dangerous!

 

[Renegade]

In case you missed the news, Garrick suffered a broken back in that tackle which was deemed not dangerous!

As mentioned in one of our local threads, his broken down chase on Niukore reminded me of Woolnoughs effort on Sandor Earl about a decade back. Had me in stitches (although I thought it was a shitty ruling).

 

[Organix]

In case you missed the news, Garrick suffered a broken back in that tackle which was deemed not dangerous!

Just read it in another thread. Actually crazy, but not much that can be done other than what has already been proposed here. It clearly looked dangerous, clearly showed a lack of concern for a fellow player, but I don't want the rules changed for a bouncing ball.