NRL General Discussion Thread

[ivanhungryjak]

 

[LittleDavey]

Of course not.

 

[Super Freak]

It was to be expected.

They couldn't prove it was deliberate. Players are entitled to use their forearm when running into defenders, the forearm wasn't high and didn't hit Walkers head until they both hit the ground. Kaufusi couldn't tuck his forearm into his body, because he just leaves himself open to hitting the ground head first.

The MRC didn't have a case. That's why they only hit him with a fine.

 

[Cult]

It was to be expected.

They couldn't prove it was deliberate. Players are entitled to use their forearm when running into defenders, the forearm wasn't high and didn't hit Walkers head until they both hit the ground. Kaufusi couldn't tuck his forearm into his body, because he just leaves himself open to hitting the ground head first.

The MRC didn't have a case. That's why they only hit him with a fine.

Why does being deliberate matter? If you accidentally drop someone on their head you still get a long suspension. The case was “you used force to drive your elbow as you went to the ground”.

Do you ever get tired of trying to be the controversial bloke on here?

 

[tommy]

Why does being deliberate matter…….great gem.

 

[Cult]

Why does being deliberate matter…….great gem.

And while we are on it, excuse me for not believing any of the shit these dirty pricks do is an accident.

 

[Foordy]

Why does being deliberate matter…….great gem.

he's right. it doesn't have to be deliberate to attract a charge/ suspension.

that's why the grading system calls them "Careless" or "Reckless" which are both accidents. Intentional is generally referred directly to the judiciary (not a graded charge)

if you only count intentional act, you'd get maybe 1 or 2 charges per year from the entire comp

 

[tommy]

he's right. it doesn't have to be deliberate to attract a charge/ suspension.

that's why the grading system calls them "Careless" or "Reckless" which are both accidents. Intentional is generally referred directly to the judiciary (not a graded charge)

if you only count intentional act, you'd get maybe 1 or 2 charges per year from the entire comp

Really?

 

[Bull Shark]

NRL360 on any given weeknight this year.. FMD

 

[Big Pete]

I'd be willing to give Kaufusi the benefit of the doubt with the initial fend. However after hitting him with the forearm he clearly ***** the elbow and drives it into the head of Walker while they're on the ground. It's not as bad as his previous incident with Matterson but it was clearly worth a fine.

The clip I saw was from 100% Footy where they tried to compare it to the Kikau on Ponga run. The difference is Kikau doesn't extend his arm at all, Ponga launches himself at the arm and knocks himself out.

I know it's a fine line and yes quite a few of those incidents get missed but when you have one as clear as day get pulled up you ought to cop it.

 

[broncos4life]

Really?

You fucking around right? Why do you thing there are gradings of reckless and careless?

 

[Super Freak]

Why does being deliberate matter? If you accidentally drop someone on their head you still get a long suspension. The case was “you used force to drive your elbow as you went to the ground”.

Do you ever get tired of trying to be the controversial bloke on here?

Because if they couldn't prove it was deliberate, they didn't have a case.

It's a defenders responsibility to make sure they don't dump anyone on their head. Just like it's a defenders responsibility to make sure they don't end up in an awkward position in a tackle where their head ends up under the forearm of the person they are trying to tackle.

Here's the definition of dangerous contact.

“Dangerous Contact – Head/Neck” – means misconduct on the part of a Player constituted by carelessly, recklessly or intentionally making dangerous contact with the head or neck of an opposing player;

Now look at the tackle. Walker and Crichton are both tackling Kaufusi and trying to bring him to the ground. Walker ends up in an awkward position and his head is under Kaufusi's forearm. When they fall to the ground, there's only one way that forearm is going to go, directly into the head of Walker because of the position Walker ends up in. Where Walker's head ends up is not on Kaufusi.

If they couldn't prove it was deliberate, the MRC didn't have a case. My guess is that's why they only fined him. They responded to the public uproar but they didn't have enough to hit him with a charge that would lead to a suspension, so they fined him and hoped he would just take it and not fight it. The Storm had other ideas.

Take your bias and hatred for anything Melbourne out of it. Which part of that is controversial?

 

[Big Pete]

Now look at the tackle. Walker and Crichton are both tackling Kaufusi and trying to bring him to the ground. Walker ends up in an awkward position and his head is under Kaufusi's forearm. When they fall to the ground, there's only one way that forearm is going to go, directly into the head of Walker because of the position Walker ends up in. Where Walker's head ends up is not on Kaufusi.

Here's my issue with it.

After the initial point of contact, Kaufusi grabs his own wrist to give his right elbow leverage and then uses that leverage to angle his elbow which he uses to drive into the mouth of Walker.

If it was incidental contact then he wouldn't have adjusted his elbow at all.

 

[tommy]

You fucking around right? Why do you thing there are gradings of reckless and careless?

No the really bit was questioning if he believes there are really only 1 or 2 genuine incidents per year.

 

[I bleed Maroon]

What a surprise.

Will we ever live to see the day when the NRL aren't gobbling Melbourne's ballsack.....honestly.

 

[NSW stables]

Because if they couldn't prove it was deliberate, they didn't have a case.

It's a defenders responsibility to make sure they don't dump anyone on their head. Just like it's a defenders responsibility to make sure they don't end up in an awkward position in a tackle where their head ends up under the forearm of the person they are trying to tackle.

Here's the definition of dangerous contact.

“Dangerous Contact – Head/Neck” – means misconduct on the part of a Player constituted by carelessly, recklessly or intentionally making dangerous contact with the head or neck of an opposing player;

Now look at the tackle. Walker and Crichton are both tackling Kaufusi and trying to bring him to the ground. Walker ends up in an awkward position and his head is under Kaufusi's forearm. When they fall to the ground, there's only one way that forearm is going to go, directly into the head of Walker because of the position Walker ends up in. Where Walker's head ends up is not on Kaufusi.

If they couldn't prove it was deliberate, the MRC didn't have a case. My guess is that's why they only fined him. They responded to the public uproar but they didn't have enough to hit him with a charge that would lead to a suspension, so they fined him and hoped he would just take it and not fight it. The Storm had other ideas.

Take your bias and hatred for anything Melbourne out of it. Which part of that is controversial?

I think people's issue with it is that kaufusi has done the same thing (albeit more obviously as I think it resulted in an immediate HIA) in the past (maybe last year?). So people are having a hard time believing this incident was an accident as they are claiming.

 

[Xzei]

Bet if walkers jaw was broken we get an entirely different charge/result

 

[IceWorks]

I'm so keen for an NRL club to give them a go.

A club like the Tigers or Dogs would be mad not to, if nothing else it gives their fans hope instead of recruiting another dud coach.

100%

perfect idea for a club that has tried conventional choices and still haven’t achieved anything recent.. Tigers and Warriors it would just be a smart move considering their history. baffling why they don’t do this frankly, I mean choosing Nathan Brown for goodness sake.