Mr Fourex
International Rep
Contributor
- Apr 9, 2012
- 12,576
- 14,278
Mr Fourex
International Rep
Contributor
- Apr 9, 2012
- 12,576
- 14,278
I'm still agreeing with you ....but
its that exact stupidity that the NRL started with, when they decided to clamp down on head injuries last year.
We saw plenty of accidental stuff penalised ...sin-binned etc etc. A tackled player's head falling into a tackler's shoulder on the way down .....for example. Penalised, sin-binned...and suspended in some cases.
Now common sense is actually being used and of course its being considered in the decision making process.
Wasn't always like that.
LittleDavey
NRL Captain
- Mar 25, 2013
- 3,961
- 7,863
No.
Walsh had zero duty of care in that collision, he was in possession and had passed the ball. May had the duty of care, and a "special duty to avoid forceful and dangerous contact" in that tackle, by the NRL's own definitons. See my previous post in this thread.
broncsgoat
International Rep
Contributor
- Oct 28, 2013
- 12,125
- 12,984
Whinging about a head clash is lol.
The bloke didn’t launch a flying head butt. Shit happens in contact sports. It was unfortunate but if it was the other way round no one on here would give a **** and would be saying play on.
broncsgoat
International Rep
Contributor
- Oct 28, 2013
- 12,125
- 12,984
Who gets suspended out of that head clash in the dragons game?
MrTickyMcG
QCup Player
- Jun 3, 2021
- 800
- 1,899
Those with the argument that “oh all head clashes will mean there is someone penalised and suspended”. Classic head clash where no one is at fault right now in the cowboys dragons game. Accidents do happen where no one is at fault. Accidents also happen where someone is at fault.
broncsgoat
International Rep
Contributor
- Oct 28, 2013
- 12,125
- 12,984
So neither had a duty of care?
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,128
- 25,778
Onus is on the defender in that situation.
If Walsh came in and raised his elbow, you'd have a point.
MrTickyMcG
QCup Player
- Jun 3, 2021
- 800
- 1,899
It’s not worth replying, you have to try to retrofit a point for him.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,128
- 25,778
Notice 1910 won't engage with Fitzy or LittleDavey's points which is unfortunately a reflection of the NRL's stance and what makes this incident frustrating. Seems like you have one side saying play on, another side saying suspension/sin-bin. I don't think anybody was happy with just penalty and at the very least the Broncos inability to activate their 18th man needs to be looked at.
They were treading water waiting for an official word and the HIA took longer because they were dealing with the cut.
They were treading water waiting for an official word and the HIA took longer because they were dealing with the cut.
LittleDavey
NRL Captain
- Mar 25, 2013
- 3,961
- 7,863
Watching it live, I thought it was just an unfortunate head clash. But thinking about it more, the way May came up so aggressively needs to be taken into account. That contact did not need to be made, he was trying to put a hit on - after Walsh had passed the ball - and it went wrong. Not unlike repeated situations which got shoulder charges banned.
As does the injury sustained to Walsh - which I have to say I'm not a fan of, a penalty should be for an act, not a result IMO and it seems harsh to me to penalise someone more harshly because the other player suffered an injury. But that's the way the NRL has ruled historically, so the fact Walsh has a facial fracture should be taken into account, on precedent.
I'm OK with the penalty on field, it was accidental and this stuff happens. I don't believe he should have been binned. BUT - under the NRL's own definitions it was either a reckless high tackle, or a shoulder charge, or at the very least late contact after the attacker had passed the ball. There must be a charge, I can't understand how the NRL can say 'nothing to see here'. Walsh has a busted face and is facing 1/4 of the season on the sidelines as a result.
As does the injury sustained to Walsh - which I have to say I'm not a fan of, a penalty should be for an act, not a result IMO and it seems harsh to me to penalise someone more harshly because the other player suffered an injury. But that's the way the NRL has ruled historically, so the fact Walsh has a facial fracture should be taken into account, on precedent.
I'm OK with the penalty on field, it was accidental and this stuff happens. I don't believe he should have been binned. BUT - under the NRL's own definitions it was either a reckless high tackle, or a shoulder charge, or at the very least late contact after the attacker had passed the ball. There must be a charge, I can't understand how the NRL can say 'nothing to see here'. Walsh has a busted face and is facing 1/4 of the season on the sidelines as a result.
Harry Sack
International Rep
Senior Staff
- Jun 12, 2013
- 14,074
- 17,375
broncsgoat
International Rep
Contributor
- Oct 28, 2013
- 12,125
- 12,984
Have any of you actually watched the tackle again? There’s nothing in it.
LittleDavey
NRL Captain
- Mar 25, 2013
- 3,961
- 7,863
There's a fractured face in it mate. Deadset.
broncsgoat
International Rep
Contributor
- Oct 28, 2013
- 12,125
- 12,984
That's where the accidental comes into play.
People are acting like it was a pre-meditated attack and Walsh was hit 3 steps after he let go of the ball.
I have never seen a head clash be suspended, on report etc like people expect here. Was it late, about a .1 of a second, they were both on the same stride as when he passed, when the collision happened.
I'm shitty that Walsh has been injured because I like him and we are so much better to watch when he's on the field, but I'm not going to fabricate offenses in my mind to build a victim mentality that lots of people on here seem to want to live in.
I'm loathe to agree with the NRL on anything but they got this one right imo.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,128
- 25,778
What people are actually saying is that it was a poor attempt at tackle and declaring it an accident doesn't prevent it from being a careless action.
Dale Finucane, Victor Radley etc. Tom Flegler was binned for a head clash on Trbojevic in Origin last year.
It's a grey area but it deserves further review and needs to be discouraged. Otherwise you end up with a Dylan Napa situation where he's breaking jaws and concussing players under the guise of an 'accidental head-clash'.
LittleDavey
NRL Captain
- Mar 25, 2013
- 3,961
- 7,863
Did you even read where I quoted the NRL's definitions of careless & reckless tackles and shoulder charges? Yes it was accidental, but it was reckless and should have been charged as such. Or a shoulder charge, take your pick. The 'late' factor is the weaker argument, plenty of accidental head clashes have been sanctioned in the past on 'dangerous' grounds.
D
DrGee
U18 Player
- May 1, 2021
- 24
- 63
Did he want to hurt him - yes. Did he want to fracture his face - no.
You would be naive to think players don't want to tackle the opposition hard and hurt them a little to intimidate them for the entire game.
Head clash, move on
Since when did we bronco fans start playing victim
You would be naive to think players don't want to tackle the opposition hard and hurt them a little to intimidate them for the entire game.
Head clash, move on
Since when did we bronco fans start playing victim
