PLAYER Reece Walsh

When you're going in for a regular tackle and the player falls/slips and you hit them high, you're still penalized. So why would this incident be any different?

The onus is always on the defender to not make contact with the head. When you make the choice to shoot out of the line to put on a big hit and it goes wrong, you suffer the consequences.

If he just goes in for a regular tackle, it's nothing more than a penalty. But he doesn't do that so the consequences are harsher.
 
broncsgoat said:
he needs to keep his feet at the line or he'll keep getting his head taken off. both of his feet slipped before contact last night, if they didnt the tackle hits him in the chest.
Click to expand...
i dont understand GIF


I thought Fatty in his horrendous commentary has lost the plot yesterday. My god, CH9 commentary was absolute clusterfuck.

How the heck was Walsh at fault and not the cockroach tackler?
In the very 1st set itself Walsh was taken out by Martin yet Clown turned a blind eye to it. If that tackle itself didn't tell whats NSW game plan for Walsh is, then I you’re lost mate.

QLD coaching staff have come out and said that these dog hits have no place in the game. Hopefully, Broncos does too.
 
broncos4life said:
Unfortunately through no fault of his own I think Walsh will have a far shorter career than he should.
Click to expand...
So in theory no one should have any issues with Reece squeezing every dollar out of Brisbane before re-signing?
 
Renegade said:
So in theory no one should have any issues with Reece squeezing every dollar out of Brisbane before re-signing?
Click to expand...
No the NRL should actually do something about this bullshit and practice the bullshit about protecting the players.
 
broncos4life said:
No the NRL should actually do something about this bullshit and practice the bullshit about protecting the players.
Click to expand...
What would be an appropriate punishment in your eyes? Being sent from the field and auto 4 week suspension is evidently not enough in the eyes of many, so how long should he be suspended for? Because you've already done the maximum you can do in the moment, so what else should be a deterrent? 8 weeks? 12?

Interesting that even though we accept he'll have a shorter career with hits like these, we still can't shake the tribal element of no he should just re-sign for less than the max because colours - so how much do we really care about his wellbeing? Or is it just his wellbeing while playing for the colours we like.
 
Renegade said:
What would be an appropriate punishment in your eyes? Being sent from the field and auto 4 week suspension is evidently not enough in the eyes of many, so how long should he be suspended for? Because you've already done the maximum you can do in the moment, so what else should be a deterrent? 8 weeks? 12?

Interesting that even though we accept he'll have a shorter career with hits like these, we still can't shake the tribal element of no he should just re-sign for less than the max because colours - so how much do we really care about his wellbeing? Or is it just his wellbeing while playing for the colours we like.
Click to expand...
It's about consistency.

Just last week JWH smoked someone with his shoulder directly to his head ... no penalty, no sin bin and his 400th Grade 1 fine
Sivo has been smoking people high rushing in... sometimes it's a penalty, sometimes he gets binned... most times he's missing weeks
Taylan May comes in recklessly and contacts Walsh high after he's passed it... zero punishment... a few weeks later something similar happened and it came out as a Grade 1

Entirety of the media were building up that Walsh had to be targetted and had to be belted out of the game... he touched it like 3 times last night and was hit illegally each time (hit in the air after kicking is an automatic penalty, late flop on a kick return and then getting shotted in the head from Suaalii after passing)... reffing did nothing to try and curb the illegal play.

NRL talk a whole bunch of shit about safety and player welfare, but then rarely back it up, because they're shit scared of teh media... in this instance they made the right call... but then you have fuckwits in the media saying it should've been play on, because "occasion"

NRL should come out and confirm that it was the correct call on the field... they should also come out and indicate that it's fine for players to jam in, but if they make dangerous contact to the head then it will be punished harshly and then they have to actually follow through with it.

Repeat offenders like JWH keep doing it and then never get punished... Suaalii constantly gets dangerous contact charges for kneeing blokes in the head, but has rarely served a suspension.

NRL need to start walking the walk
 
@BroncsFan
At the risk of sounding like a dictator, the NRL probably need to get their media personalities in line if they want to maintain the consistency as well.

Hard to be consistent when they're attacked regardless of whether it's the right call or not. I mean you've got a prominent commentator saying it wasn't that bad.

The NRL aren't at the behest of the media, but it's hard to swim in a whirlpool.
 
BroncosFever said:
I'm almost convinced a few NRL teams are prepared to tread a fine line if it means taking out an opposition outside back, we've seen a few times this year when a team is force to re-shuffle their centres/wingers it really does open up down that side of the field.
Click to expand...
Which is why a clear message has to ring out......take the punt and get it wrong. You're off.

So while you might take out the player you've targeted....you'll be playing the rest of the game with 12 men.

Still want to tread that fine line....?
 
Mr Fourex said:
For the accidental shot gone wrong......?

1 week. The same as the guy you put into a HIA.
Click to expand...
1 week is a bit of a tap on the wrist and doesn't really send much of a message. Personally I'm fine with 4 on those, but anything more is just bloodlust from the aggrieved. I think many will disagree with both of us though.
 
Renegade said:
@BroncsFan
At the risk of sounding like a dictator, the NRL probably need to get their media personalities in line if they want to maintain the consistency as well.

Hard to be consistent when they're attacked regardless of whether it's the right call or not. I mean you've got a prominent commentator saying it wasn't that bad.

The NRL aren't at the behest of the media, but it's hard to swim in a whirlpool.
Click to expand...
100% ... they're clearly shit scared of the media and their opinions, but league commentators are so unprofessional it's ridiculous.

They appear incapable of removing their bias from any comment they make and the whole setup is jobs for the boys and wanting to relive their glory days like it's the 80's.
 
Renegade said:
1 week is a bit of a tap on the wrist and doesn't really send much of a message. Personally I'm fine with 4 on those, but anything more is just bloodlust from the aggrieved. I think many will disagree with both of us though.
Click to expand...

If you cause a concussion that leads to the eleven day protocol through careless or reckless actions, you get stood down the same amount of time/games as the concussed player, at a minimum.
 
@ningnangnong

Mate he's 20 years old. He probably doesn't know a life without social media.

It's a totally different world comparatively. SM is validation. It's weird for us oldies over 30 but for them it's everything.
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 711
1:26:10
NSWRL Preliminary Final, 1990 - Canberra Raiders vs Brisbane Broncos
View full media list »

Active Now

  • Hoof Hearted
  • winslow_wong
  • kman
  • Sproj
  • Gaz
  • Loch Ness Monster
  • Tim K
  • RolledOates
  • Broncorob
  • Foordy
  • Mightybroncs2k17
  • I bleed Maroon
  • Wolfie
  • ChewThePhatt
  • matthewransom34@ic
Total: 128 (members: 19, guests: 109)
Robots: 171
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.