ANTiLAG
First Grade
- Messages
- 8,014
Thread for NRL media based posts where the media say something stupid, smart or controversial that do not deserve their own thread.
Steve Blocker Roach does not appear to take himself all that seriously nor typically portray himself as a skilled debater or intellectual, but on this week's Sterlo he looked a class above co-panelists such as Corey Parker.
The issue was Soiola being sent off for the high-tackle on Billy Slater.
Blocker's argument, was that almost no player in the modern NRL with the possibility of facing such bans, fines and further financial loss, deliberately comes into contact with an opponents head (punching and the rare and famously deliberate king hits aside). He's done his homework and talked to the forwards. They don't want their wallets lightened. The deterrents are in fact deterring. This is actually a good argument from Blocker, as the issue around fault for a player making head contact and being punsihed is far more typically less than intending to hit the head, but a player being reckless as to the possibility of hitting a head and to ensure they exercise their duty of care as far as reasonably possible (negligence) to not hit the head.
The response from the seemingly more articulate Corey Parker was "there was intent",
Roach's riposte, "intent to do what?"
A disbelieving Corey Parker tried again to say that there was intent, but an animated Steve Roach was now all over the point with "intent to do what".
Finally Corey Parker modified or expanded his argument to there was intent to hit Billy Slater late (after he passed the ball).*
I feel for Corey Parker because the phrase "there was intent" is so often poorly used in rugby league circles, one could almost be forgiven for thinking it is an esoteric phrase with an in-trade meaning of say hitting at full force, like it is mis-used by cricket commentators for players who bowl or bat with more "aggression" (or increasing risk and riding their luck) to take wickets or score runs, but not on Blocker Roach's watch, even with the panel (Ennis seemed to miss the point of the debate altogether) trying to him he was wrong, he demands the verb to complete phrase. Blocker was right to in my opinion.
Well done Blocker.
*Blocker was not entirely convinced of this either as he reckons the angle Solialo was comming from - he would have been blinded as to Billy having passed the ball before it was too late, but it is a separate issue from the head issue.
Steve Blocker Roach does not appear to take himself all that seriously nor typically portray himself as a skilled debater or intellectual, but on this week's Sterlo he looked a class above co-panelists such as Corey Parker.
The issue was Soiola being sent off for the high-tackle on Billy Slater.
Blocker's argument, was that almost no player in the modern NRL with the possibility of facing such bans, fines and further financial loss, deliberately comes into contact with an opponents head (punching and the rare and famously deliberate king hits aside). He's done his homework and talked to the forwards. They don't want their wallets lightened. The deterrents are in fact deterring. This is actually a good argument from Blocker, as the issue around fault for a player making head contact and being punsihed is far more typically less than intending to hit the head, but a player being reckless as to the possibility of hitting a head and to ensure they exercise their duty of care as far as reasonably possible (negligence) to not hit the head.
The response from the seemingly more articulate Corey Parker was "there was intent",
Roach's riposte, "intent to do what?"
A disbelieving Corey Parker tried again to say that there was intent, but an animated Steve Roach was now all over the point with "intent to do what".
Finally Corey Parker modified or expanded his argument to there was intent to hit Billy Slater late (after he passed the ball).*
I feel for Corey Parker because the phrase "there was intent" is so often poorly used in rugby league circles, one could almost be forgiven for thinking it is an esoteric phrase with an in-trade meaning of say hitting at full force, like it is mis-used by cricket commentators for players who bowl or bat with more "aggression" (or increasing risk and riding their luck) to take wickets or score runs, but not on Blocker Roach's watch, even with the panel (Ennis seemed to miss the point of the debate altogether) trying to him he was wrong, he demands the verb to complete phrase. Blocker was right to in my opinion.
Well done Blocker.
*Blocker was not entirely convinced of this either as he reckons the angle Solialo was comming from - he would have been blinded as to Billy having passed the ball before it was too late, but it is a separate issue from the head issue.
Last edited:
