Roosters vs Tigers *end game Spoilers*

[Anonymous person]

What's the exact wording on the rule though? I'd love to see it. The rule can't be "black and white" surely.

Regardless it's just dumb that you have people arguing about whether it should be a penalty or not. 99.9% of the rugby league community and rugby league players think it's a great legitimate hit so why does 3-4 brainless farkwits think that they need to change the rules around to ensure no contact is made with the shoulder OR at least make the rule so the refs can use their discretion as to whether or not contact with the head was not warranted.

Someone got a rule book handy? I want to know the exact wording of it.

the exact rule is as follows, taken from the 2009 ARL International Rules Book:

Section 15
Player's Misconduct

1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:
(a) trips, kicks or strikes another player.
(b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle
makes contact with the head or neck of an
opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

its not 3 or 4 people whinging saying that they should change the rules to make it illegal - its 3-4 people saying that it is 100% illegal by the rules, but that the rules should be changed so it ISNT illegal. its a stupid rule, and its one that ive absolutely hated for years. it used to be based on FIRST CONTACT, but they changed it to just makes contact with. so in the past if you hit their shoulder then slid up to their head, it was play on. now you could hit their waist, then their chest, then their neck, then their head, and its deemed a head high tackle. its ridiculous.

 

[Coxy]

ROFL! Suck it up Farah you sook!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/r ... 5919871437

 

[Dexter]

I agree with the sentimemt of your post AP and Rock but if you can remember back when the rule was first contact you had blokes like Mario Fenech and plenty of others aiming swinging arms at the ball and shoulder with the sole intent of bouncing up into the head.

This is why thrule was changed, also I would hate to see a game changed because a player like Benji, Loocky or Carney was hit buy a shoulder charge, the little guys are at a distincy disadvantage as it's very hard to protect yourself against a taller player.

 

[Coxy]

1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:
(a) trips, kicks or strikes another player.
(b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle
makes contact with the head or neck of an
opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

Did or did not Dwyer make contact with JWH's head while effecting a tackle?
Would you or would you not say the action was careless, given he took his eyes off the player he was hitting prior to making contact?

If you say no to both questions, you're smoking something (probably the Quran) and can I have some.

 

[mrslong]

I would actually blame Benji for the loss. What was he thinking punching Pearce on the lead up to that try? He has been throwing a few lately, needs to pull his head in.

I liked O'Dwyer's hit, but it was definitely a penalty.

Anyone know what Chris Heighington was thinking not jumping on that ball? [icon_shru

 

[Anonymous person]

I would actually blame Benji for the loss. What was he thinking punching Pearce on the lead up to that try? He has been throwing a few lately, needs to pull his head in.

I liked O'Dwyer's hit, but it was definitely a penalty.

Anyone know what Chris Heighington was thinking not jumping on that ball? [icon_shru

yeah ive also noticed that in benji - he had a go at that giant man-mountain of a fella last week, against the titans i think?

 

[Porthoz]

I would actually blame Benji for the loss. What was he thinking punching Pearce on the lead up to that try? He has been throwing a few lately, needs to pull his head in.

I liked O'Dwyer's hit, but it was definitely a penalty.

Anyone know what Chris Heighington was thinking not jumping on that ball? [icon_shru

yeah ive also noticed that in benji - he had a go at that giant man-mountain of a fella last week, against the titans i think?

He did, I think it was Matt White. The funniest part was that White looked like he didn't know what to do. Can't beat up a little fellow, but also can't allow him to get away with it... Lose - lose situation! [icon_lol1.

 

[Je$ter]

I would actually blame Benji for the loss. What was he thinking punching Pearce on the lead up to that try? He has been throwing a few lately, needs to pull his head in.

I liked O'Dwyer's hit, but it was definitely a penalty.

Anyone know what Chris Heighington was thinking not jumping on that ball? [icon_shru

yeah ive also noticed that in benji - he had a go at that giant man-mountain of a fella last week, against the titans i think?

I would pay good money to see Benji Marshall sat on his arse by a big guy.

Srsly Benji, you are made of glass for a start, you've had 3309798 shoulder operations and now your knee is stuffed? Stick to passing the ball champ instead of trying to hit and [icon_lol1. [icon_lol1. intimidate people.

 

[mrslong]

Pearce would have nailed him if he didn't get thrown to the ground by the Tigers player. Marshall is the first player that you'd want to take on in a fight.

It was certainly funny , we were yelling "wow he's decked pearce, sent him flying, who knew Benji packed such a mean punch", then on the replay you see the Tigers player pulling pearce to the ground and Benji having contributed nothing [icon_lol1. [icon_lol1.

 

[Anonymous person]

Stick to passing the ball champ instead of trying to hit and [icon_lol1. [icon_lol1. intimidate people.

theres only so long he could go without acting on his native kiwi urges.

 

[Je$ter]

Pearce would have nailed him if he didn't get thrown to the ground by the Tigers player. Marshall is the first player that you'd want to take on in a fight.

He'd probably dislocate a shoulder throwing a punch.

 

[Anonymous person]

[quote="The Rock":3g9pue2v]Pearce would have nailed him if he didn't get thrown to the ground by the Tigers player. Marshall is the first player that you'd want to take on in a fight.

He'd probably dislocate a shoulder throwing a punch.[/quote:3g9pue2v]
he probably dislocated his shoulder while thinking about throwing a punch, hence why he didnt [icon_lol1.

 

[Professor47]

Can I just ask - for those you who wanted that to be a penalty.. do you guys really - and I mean REALLY want to see a game decided like that?

Don't worry about it if it should be technically a penalty or whatever - you guys really want to see a game decided like that?

If that is not a CLEAR example of where we want refs to use discretion then I don't know what is.

Sorry if I sound like a dinosaur or whatever but if THAT hit is a penalty then seriously... come on. Seriously.

 

[Anonymous person]

Can I just ask - for those you who wanted that to be a penalty.. do you guys really - and I mean REALLY want to see a game decided like that?

Don't worry about it if it should be technically a penalty or whatever - you guys really want to see a game decided like that?

If that is not a CLEAR example of where we want refs to use discretion then I don't know what is.

Sorry if I sound like a dinosaur or whatever but if THAT hit is a penalty then seriously... come on. Seriously.

i didnt want it to be a penalty - but i want consistency from the referees, and to get that it shouldve been one. there have been tackles that were MUCH softer penalised every single week.

head high tackles are one area where i dont think there should be discretion. it should be a penalty if first contact is the head, no penalty otherwise. thats it. no discretion needed.

in this particular instance, given the eventual outcome that we got, yes, im glad it wasnt penalised. but had the result gone the other way, i would be pretty filthy that it wasnt penalised.

 

[Coxy]

Can I just ask - for those you who wanted that to be a penalty.. do you guys really - and I mean REALLY want to see a game decided like that?

Don't worry about it if it should be technically a penalty or whatever - you guys really want to see a game decided like that?

If that is not a CLEAR example of where we want refs to use discretion then I don't know what is.

Sorry if I sound like a dinosaur or whatever but if THAT hit is a penalty then seriously... come on. Seriously.

i didnt want it to be a penalty - but i want consistency from the referees, and to get that it shouldve been one. there have been tackles that were MUCH softer penalised every single week.

head high tackles are one area where i dont think there should be discretion. it should be a penalty if first contact is the head, no penalty otherwise. thats it. no discretion needed.

in this particular instance, given the eventual outcome that we got, yes, im glad it wasnt penalised. but had the result gone the other way, i would be pretty filthy that it wasnt penalised.

^^^ This.

 

[Dexter]

And the refs are deciding the outcome of the game by not making a call, I mean the chooks season was over if not for the miracle field goal and what followed.

 

[Porthoz]

Funny how in "The Sunday's Roast", Gould and co raved about the hit and agreed no penalty was given, but got on the refs big time for the scrum that ensued and how that pretty much knocked the Warriors out the finals... [icon_shru

 

[Fozz]

No charge for Dwyer. Guess the match review committee is smoking those "grass clippings", Coxy?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 66,00.html