Round 24 Discussion
- Thread starter Big Pete
- Start date
Kaz
State of Origin Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 10,066
- 3,842
No there not.
- Apr 9, 2012
- 12,629
- 14,369
Mullen didn't look too happy about it .......!
Bit of a weird one ......didn't look like much in it. Head clash too, yeah?
Seen plenty go on report for that type of collision, not too many sent off.
The decision seemed reactive .......chalk it up as yet another arbitrary decision made from the men in the middle this year.
- Aug 5, 2013
- 4,114
- 2,745
I agree at first glance it didn't look much. I think if he'd got straight up we would've heard no more about it.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
a shoulder charge is like a tackle, you cant accidentally do one. Its a deliberate action by definition. **** the arm, twist the torso, lead with shoulder.
again I ask - to those who say it deserved a send off, what would your opinion be if Thompson didn't get hurt and got up instantly for a quick play the ball? Still a send off?
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,144
- 25,823
- Thread starter
- #47
It was heading into the 2001 finals, Brisbane faced St. George Illawarra on a bright sunny afternoon at the Gong. Part-way through the first half, Kevin Walters is hit in a group tackle, plays the ball while clutching his face and comes off the field. No penalty or anything, Walters is just off.
As it turns out, he copped an elbow in the face and it fractured his eye socket.
Naturally, Craig Smith, the player responsible, is charged by the judiciary and eventually suspended for the rest of the year. Now you would not believe the whinging down south, they couldn't believe the incident was worthy of that punishment given it wasn't even a penalty and the only reason it was even brought up was because of the injury.
Similar principal at play here.
As it turns out, he copped an elbow in the face and it fractured his eye socket.
Naturally, Craig Smith, the player responsible, is charged by the judiciary and eventually suspended for the rest of the year. Now you would not believe the whinging down south, they couldn't believe the incident was worthy of that punishment given it wasn't even a penalty and the only reason it was even brought up was because of the injury.
Similar principal at play here.
Kaz
State of Origin Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 10,066
- 3,842
Yes, still a send off.
He made no effort to pull out or wrap his arms around the player.
I also think that if a player is found guilty of an illegal play (shoulder charge) & the player is hurt, then the guilty player's suspension starts when the injured player comes back.
The NRL should have an independant Dr give an assessment on when the injured player should be due back.
If the player is out for 10 weeks & the guilty player gets 4 weeks, he comes back 14 weeks later. (you can stop laughing)
Also trials shouldn't be included in a suspension.
- Mar 26, 2008
- 7,914
- 6,830
If the refs or judiciary deem a hit to be deliberate then the damage caused is taken into account and in this instance they deemed the hit deliberate and aimed at the head and made contact and caused a broken jaw.
If that is not a send off then what is?
My personal view was it was a reflex to protect himself, I know if I was in that position that's exactly what I would have done to brace for impact.
I agree if no damage had been done he wouldn't have been sent, but when the damage is so obvious and caused by an illegal tackle I can't see what option the refs had.
If that is not a send off then what is?
My personal view was it was a reflex to protect himself, I know if I was in that position that's exactly what I would have done to brace for impact.
I agree if no damage had been done he wouldn't have been sent, but when the damage is so obvious and caused by an illegal tackle I can't see what option the refs had.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
edit: double post brah!
Last edited:
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
so like every other shoulder charge that has been and gone without so much as a sin bin, let alone a send off. in fact there were a few others just as bad, if not worse, than snowdens this weekend that didnt end with a send off. the ONLY difference is the injury, which does not (or i should say SHOULD NOT since it clearly did for these incompetent refs) play ANY part in if its a send off or not.
it was not a send off offence in any way shape or form.
oh and this guy agrees:
What's the Buzz: NRL to blame for North Queensland hooker Ray Thompson's broken jaw | News.com.au
"That hit was just as bad as Snowden’s. It jolted the ball free and left a stunned Rabbitohs centre on the ground.
The only difference is that it didn’t break his jaw."
"Towards the end of the game Josh Reynolds launched himself shoulder first at a Rabbitohs opponent, desperately trying to force an error.
Again it was a similar tackle to Snowden’s, the only difference being that no-one got hurt."
"So why should Snowden face a lengthy suspension for basically the same technique that others have been using and getting away with all year.
The NRL and referees have stuffed this up badly."
the day a shoulder charge is a send off offence is the day the players should start wearing skirts.
also, to those saying that its a send off because of the injury - do you agree then that paul gallen shouldnt have been sent off for his king hit on nate myles because myles wasnt injured? same with trent merrin. are you allowed to just do whatever you want and never be sent off as long as you dont seriously injure someone? just cop 10 in the bin at worst?
also this weekend, tate gets smacked across the face with a high shot, stays down, refs look at it, see the high shot.......play on! wtf!?! i thought the refs couldnt get any worse from last year. theyre doing their best to prove me wrong in the back end of this year.
Last edited:
QUEENSLANDER
NRL Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 4,316
- 537
anyone suggesting snowden wouldve been sent if thompson just got back up are kidding themselves, and frankly, are fucking idiots. the fact thompson got injured AND the time it took to get him off the field all contributed to the situation. the ref kinda had to send him after it took 5 mins to take poor thompson from the field. the crowd was chanting "off", so were several of the cowboys. the refs caved. if thompson had got straight back up, theres a good chance the refs wouldve actually missed it altogether.
fact is, an injury shouldnt play any part in the decision. its either a send off or not, regardless of the effect on the opposition player.
having said that, if they wanna get rid of should charges, this is the way to do it. shouldve started earlier in the year. now they have to be consistent
fact is, an injury shouldnt play any part in the decision. its either a send off or not, regardless of the effect on the opposition player.
having said that, if they wanna get rid of should charges, this is the way to do it. shouldve started earlier in the year. now they have to be consistent
No it shouldn't. But it was no worse than Fa'aoso's hit on Ashley Harrison earlier in the year that was just on report. In fact, Fa'aoso was probably worse because it was from Harrison's blind side.
Snowden was just making a front on tackle. The shoulder contact with the head was accidental, careless even. Report sufficient, let the review panel deal with it.
Send off was clearly an overreaction to the horrific injury Thompson suffered.
Bingo. The fact Fa'aoso was not sent off earlier in the year for the exact type of shoulder charge they're trying to get rid of set them up for this.
I support the shoulder charge ban, and on that alone I support the send off. BUT, based on everything we've seen this year Snowden was hard done by. End of story. You simply can't start judging send offs based on injury inflicted. It's nonsense.
