POST GAME [Round 3, 2024] Broncos vs Panthers

[Mr Fourex]

The thing is, i think the head clash was absolutely accidental. The tackle and the way it happened was still dangerous and reckless. Doesnt have to be deliberate to be dangerous.

We have seen many....many players, penalised, sin-binned and charged for making contact with the head.

A large portion of those incidents were accidental. The NRLs blanket stance was....it doesn't matter that it was accidental
you made contact with the head....penalty....sin bin.

but now its not........

 

[The Strapper]

Don't think so.

Name me just 1 female, or gay guy, who sees that injury/scar .. and doesn't want to kiss it all better?

Yes I suppose there is that but I was thinking of paid work.

I guess he could still do modelling if he could get Princess Kate to photoshop the injury out for him.

 

[1910]

We have seen many....many players, penalised, sin-binned and charged for making contact with the head.

A large portion of those incidents were accidental. The NRLs blanket stance was....it doesn't matter that it was accidental
you made contact with the head....penalty....sin bin.

but now its not........

But how many for head clashes? I know you can't contact the head but there would be a lot of head-on-head contact in a game in tackles and on the ground and they're not sin bin worthy.

If his shoulder had done the damage to Walsh, I think he's out for three weeks, but it was his head. Doesn't change the impact to Walsh's face or the Broncos but it could have just as easily been him out for four weeks and stitches in his face.

You can't completely eliminate the accident from sport.

 

[TimWhatley]

Accidental or not that tackle was always gonna end in Walsh's face getting smashed. Is it up to Walsh to get out of the way so his cheekbone doesn't get broken? I think that shit comes under duty of care from the defender.

 

[Ejbroncos]

You know...I think we might be being a bit tough on Baker.

I didn't realise he played 71 minutes, no wonder he was gassed in the back end of the game and especially out of position.

Additionally, I'm worried we might be burning Patty out - he played 80 on the back of 75 the week before.

Lol that’s ridiculous. He missed a simple tackle on Cleary fresh off a half time break. He missed To’o too. He’s not the only player under fatigue. He’s just shithouse. Simple knock ons in the play the ball in his first few hitups too

 

[Fitzy]

But how many for head clashes? I know you can't contact the head but there would be a lot of head-on-head contact in a game in tackles and on the ground and they're not sin bin worthy.

If his shoulder had done the damage to Walsh, I think he's out for three weeks, but it was his head. Doesn't change the impact to Walsh's face or the Broncos but it could have just as easily been him out for four weeks and stitches in his face.

You can't completely eliminate the accident from sport.

Spoken like a true NRL administrator.

You have completely taken the entire context of the tackle out of the equation. He raced out of the line to cause pressure and hit him high and late. I’m sorry but not an acceptable stance at all. Just because a relatively passive tackle in the middle has the head to head context you are referring to doesn’t mean this is the same. He raced out and created the dangerous situation and he got it so wrong that his shoulders would have collected him as well if it wasn’t for his head having led his body movement into the tackle. It was a shithouse tackle and because we see as you said head to head contact regularly in a vastly different context we have to put up with this bullshit where our player is out for over a month because of a DANGEROUS tackle with no repercussions. I’m not advocating for 4 weeks I’m talking 1-2 with a fine and he should have undoubtedly have been binned or at the very least HIA’d to go along with common practice over the past few years.

Don’t keep giving me this bullshit excuse I keep hearing “accidental”, you’d want to fucking hope it was an accident. Doesn’t mean he hasn’t got the tackle horribly wrong and created a dangerous environment and it certainly does not mean because he has created an equally dangerous environment for himself that it should be fair game. Pathetic take that. It was a high and fairly forceful tackle that was never ending well. Accidents don’t mitigate foul play. I’m sure Sean Keppie doesn’t mean to drop the ball every 3 minutes should it be play on cause it’s accidental? He did the fucken crime he pays the time.

He made a conscious effort to race out and put pressure on Walsh. When you do that you must be hitting them safely. Don’t give a flying **** if he meant it or not, his responsibility is to not come into contact with his head. The upright tackle he tried to make was wildly inappropriate for the scenario he was facing. Thats careless decision making and in the end his poor movement choices have collected him high. Thats a dangerous high tackle every day of the fucking week especially when you bring in the speed of it and the late factor.

You could give me I don’t think it’s a bad enough tackle to be charged argument over this bullshit fucking accident argument. THERE ALL FUCKING ACCIDENTS.

 

[Mr Fourex]

You can't completely eliminate the accident from sport.

I agree but ....the NRL's prior stance was you can not make contact with the head under any circumstance. Regardless whether it's deliberate or accidental, shoulder or head or knee etc etc.......its a penalty and your in the bin for 10 mins.

 

[1910]

I agree but ....the NRL's prior stance was you can not make contact with the head under any circumstance. Regardless whether it's deliberate or accidental, shoulder or head or knee etc etc.......its a penalty and your in the bin for 10 mins.

There is still common sense and understanding things that happeni n a game. Smith got an elbow in the face last night and split his eye open.

Should that elbow result in a two-week suspension? No because that's stupid.

 

[LittleDavey]

But how many for head clashes? I know you can't contact the head but there would be a lot of head-on-head contact in a game in tackles and on the ground and they're not sin bin worthy.

If his shoulder had done the damage to Walsh, I think he's out for three weeks, but it was his head. Doesn't change the impact to Walsh's face or the Broncos but it could have just as easily been him out for four weeks and stitches in his face.

You can't completely eliminate the accident from sport.

Sorry mate, this take is cooked.

It meets the definitions of a reckless high tackle, a shoulder charge AND late contact with a passer under the NRL's definitions:

High Tackle – Careless​

A Careless High Tackle is when a defending player makes forceful contact with the head or neck of an attacking player. The contact must be deemed careless, in that the defending player has failed in his duty of care.

What are the key indicators of this charge?

A careless high tackle generally sees the defending player attempting to make a genuine attempt at making a wrapping or grabbing tackle. The defender’s hand/s are generally open when making a wrapping type tackle.

The initial point of contact may not have been directly with the head or neck, however contact with the head or neck did occur during the tackle. However, the attempted tackle was made in the marginal target area, which is high around the upper chest and shoulders of the defending player.

At times, a careless high tackle may see the attacking player be impacted by another defender in the tackle which sees their height lowered when tackled.

I've underlined the important parts here - May was not attempting to make a genuine attempt at a wrapping or grabbing tackle, so it was not a careless high tackle, it was worse than that but at a minimum he could/should have been charged with this. Let's step up to reckless:

High Tackle – Reckless​

A Reckless High Tackle is when a defending player makes forceful contact with the head or neck of an attacking player. The high contact will be deemed reckless when a player foresees high contact before or during the action of a tackle and carries on with the tackle regardless of that risk. A player may “foresee” high contact when starting (or even during) a tackle even if he closes his eyes or looks away at the last moment.

What are the key indicators of this charge?

The defender is not attempting to make a genuine attempt at making a wrapping or grabbing tackle. The defender’s hand/s may be clinched in a fist. The defender’s arm may be swinging in an upwards direction. The attempted tackle was made in the marginal target area, which is high around the upper chest and shoulders of the defending player.

This is far more appropriate. May jumps into the contact, which can only ever result in high contact on Walsh. There is no genuine attempt at a wrapping tackle, he has an arm tucked. You can also see in the above that if his face doesn't make contact with Walsh's head and rock it backwards, his shoulder absolutely would have. Which leads into:

Shoulder Charge​

A shoulder charge is where the tackling player uses his shoulder and/or upper arm without, at the same time, using both of his arms to tackle or otherwise take hold of the opposing player. Arms obviously includes hands. The contact and force must be generated by the shoulder of the tackling player. Unless both arms are used or attempted to be used, then in any case where the shoulder and/or upper are used to make forceful contact, it will be a shoulder charge.

What are the key indicators of this charge?

A shoulder charge and the contact made must be forceful. The key question is whether the defender attempted to use both arms in attempting to wrap in the tackle. At times, another defender may impact the ability for the defender to use both arms in the tackle (squeezed out). At times, defending players may make incidental contact with an attacking player by attempting to brace or absorb an impact, as opposed to generating a forceful contact themselves.

Clearly, both arms were NOT used to tackle or take hold of Walsh, so this tackle meets the definition of a shoulder charge as well. It's about as clear-cut as you can get. As far as late:

Late contact with passers​

Where an attacking player who has passed the football is placed into a position of particular physical vulnerability, the defending player has a special duty to avoid forceful and dangerous contact with the attacking player. After a player has passed the football, they generally do not expect to have forceful contact made by a defending player. Any forceful contact that places an attacking player at an unnecessary risk of being injured after they have passed the ball may be charged with this offence.

What are the key indicators of this charge?

The contact must be made to player who was not in possession of the ball. It must be assessed whether the defending player could have avoided making the contact to the player who had passed the ball. The contact that was made must have an unacceptable risk of injury to the attacking player. The attacking player must have had no ability to protect himself during this contact. It must be assessed whether the defender was not obstructed in their view of the player having already passed the ball.

It was a late, reckless, high shoulder charge. He could have been charged under any of those 4 markers, how he completely avoids sanction for it is just disgusting.

 

[Footy Fanatic]

There is still common sense and understanding things that happeni n a game. Smith got an elbow in the face last night and split his eye open.

Should that elbow result in a two-week suspension? No because that's stupid.

Not the greatest example... That elbow belonged to Lindsay Smith, his own teammate.

The Taylan May incident is a completely situation and not comparable to that.

 

[1910]

Not the greatest example... That elbow belonged to Lindsay Smith, his own teammate.

The Taylan May incident is a completely situation and not comparable to that.

I am saying if the rule is black and white no contract with the head than stray elbows need to be delt with too. You can't apply accident sometimes and not all the time.

Smith is a accident but May we don't allow accidents in our game sorry.

I understand Smith was the cause of Collins but even if it wasn't the same people claiming no accidents in League wouldn't be calling for anything to be done about it.

 

[1910]

Independent doctor can only call them from the field if the team's onfield trainer doesnt.

That's the only job the independent doctor has... sit on the sideline and watch a TV.

The team's doctor conducts the HIA on the player not the independent doctor.

You have to achieve your baseline or better from the same questions you did in pre-season. 10 words back in order three times and general questions like time, who are we playing.

 

[Footy Fanatic]

I am saying if the rule is black and white no contract with the head than stray elbows need to be delt with too. You can't apply accident sometimes and not all the time.

Smith is a accident but May we don't allow accidents in our game sorry.

I understand Smith was the cause of Collins but even if it wasn't the same people claiming no accidents in League wouldn't be calling for anything to be done about it.

I still don't see how an accident between two teammates is the same as an accident between two opposing players. Most accidents between opposing players are punished in the NRL.

Two things can also be true, May didn't intend to hit Reece in the head with his head (so was an accident), but that he is still in the wrong for not attempting to make a tackle, jumping off the ground and hitting him late.

 

[broncos4life]

I am saying if the rule is black and white no contract with the head than stray elbows need to be delt with too. You can't apply accident sometimes and not all the time.

Smith is a accident but May we don't allow accidents in our game sorry.

I understand Smith was the cause of Collins but even if it wasn't the same people claiming no accidents in League wouldn't be calling for anything to be done about it.

I don’t agree with most of what you have said on this and there is no point going through it but what particularly don’t get is how it is unpunished because it is an accident. A huge majority of the actions on the field that are punished are accidents, if they were intentional you would be having to look at so much longer on the sidelines.

 

[Xzei]

Finucane would have liked this interpretation back in 22

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

This whole "its an accident" crap is possibly the worst defence I've ever heard. Every. Single. Charge. Is. An. Accident. We have some dumbasses and nutjobs in the game but ffs this isn't a game between serial killing psychopaths. They don't purposely try to break people's jaws, kills or end careers.

He hit his head with force! It's fucking black and white. Bad luck! Now I have NO DOUBT this is going to get manipulated, until of course, we do it then they will set an example and come down hard all of a sudden

 

[1910]

I don’t agree with most of what you have said on this and there is no point going through it but what particularly don’t get is how it is unpunished because it is an accident. A huge majority of the actions on the field that are punished are accidents, if they were intentional you would be having to look at so much longer on the sidelines.

It's not unpunished it was penalised and put on report.

 

[broncsgoat]

We have seen many....many players, penalised, sin-binned and charged for making contact with the head.

A large portion of those incidents were accidental. The NRLs blanket stance was....it doesn't matter that it was accidental
you made contact with the head....penalty....sin bin.

but now its not........

Walsh also made contact with Penrith blokes head. Suspend him (served while injured)