Stay Classy Brissy

[blaza88z]

The problem is that if you start applying discretion to these sort of situations, then you'll come to the territory where it will only be penalised if it results in injury which isn't fair either.

That's how the judiciary works isn't it?

 

[Danish]

Rubbish. He had to jump to secure the ball and save a try as Mead would have jumped, likely secured the ball and scored.

Totally necessary for him to jump. But it did leave him in a very vulnerable position. If he didn't jump and Mead scored then Turbo would be getting blasted for being weak.

I'd say refs should be (maybe they can?) give a penalty in that situation as simply a dangerous tackle. Apply it when a player has to leap to secure a high bouncing ball and gets smashed. But discretionary only.

Well perhaps he'll work on his positioning so that he isn't letting bombs bounce to begin with and avoid the whole mess?

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I totally misunderstood the context around this play...

I had originally thought Tom was injured off a Manly attacking kick (which, in that situation, Bronx should definitely be able to grab him in the air).

But catching a defensive kick, regardless of whether it has bounced or not, the player should have the refs protection until he has hit the ground. Its pretty bloody unlikely the rule will be exploited for attacking gain since the other team is deciding where the ball is kicked to, but these players need to be protected when they are so exposed to cheap shots like the one in this game.

As for Brisbanes article, it might have been legal, but calling it a "great play" when it might have ended the kids season is a dick move...

 

[RazorRam0n]

maybe broncos social media team could do with some marketing training from a team that specialises in roasting other team's with class?

Parramatta Eels

@TheParraEels

Get on the bus.... or train.

Don’t miss our home game this weekend at @ANZStadium - http://www.parraeels.com.au/gameday/transport.html … #OnTheBus #blueandgold

7:21 PM - 17 May 2017

 

[TheDMC]

Well perhaps he'll work on his positioning so that he isn't letting bombs bounce to begin with and avoid the whole mess?

Tough taskmaster...

 

[Danish]

Tough taskmaster...

Pretty much.

Players get enough protection in today's game. If a fullback wants a clear catch at a ball, get to it on the full. If he can't do that, he can risk his body leaving the ground just like an attacking player has to.

 

[Big Pete]

But catching a defensive kick, regardless of whether it has bounced or not, the player should have the refs protection until he has hit the ground. Its pretty bloody unlikely the rule will be exploited for attacking gain since the other team is deciding where the ball is kicked to, but these players need to be protected when they are so exposed to cheap shots like the one in this game.

If a guy comes charging in looking to take out the legs of the defender I could see that being penalised. However in this situation Mead has originally gone for the football and when he's realised he couldn't grab it, he simply grabbed onto Tom who happened to land awkwardly. It wasn't a dangerous tackle in of itself.

 

[Nice Beaver]

If a guy comes charging in looking to take out the legs of the defender I could see that being penalised. However in this situation Mead has originally gone for the football and when he's realised he couldn't grab it, he simply grabbed onto Tom who happened to land awkwardly. It wasn't a dangerous tackle in of itself.

See your point, but intent is not the be all and end all in "dangerous" situations.

Hence the grading of tackles as reckless, careless or intentional.

 

[Danish]

See your point, but intent is not the be all and end all in "dangerous" situations.

Hence the grading of tackles as reckless, careless or intentional.

those gradings only come into play if a player breaks a rule first i.e. hits high, lifts past the horizontal, strikes, trips, hit late etc. What rule was broken in this incident?

it tough to charge someone with a dangerous tackle when making a completely legal tackle according to every rule in the book.

 

[Big Pete]

See your point, but intent is not the be all and end all in "dangerous" situations.

Hence the grading of tackles as reckless, careless or intentional.

those gradings only come into play if a player breaks a rule first i.e. hits high, lifts past the horizontal, strikes, trips, hit late etc. What rule was broken in this incident?

it tough to charge someone with a dangerous tackle when making a completely legal tackle according to every rule in the book.

Those are essentially my thoughts.

 

[Nice Beaver]

those gradings only come into play if a player breaks a rule first i.e. hits high, lifts past the horizontal, strikes, trips, hit late etc. What rule was broken in this incident?

it tough to charge someone with a dangerous tackle when making a completely legal tackle according to every rule in the book.

FFS. No rule was broken here. Nobody has says that Mead broke any rule at all. He was perfectly within his rights to make the tackle he did as the rules currently stand.

The issue that has been raised is a revision of the current rules.

 

[Danish]

FFS. No rule was broken here. Nobody has says that Mead broke any rule at all. He was perfectly within his rights to make the tackle he did as the rules currently stand.

The issue that has been raised is a revision of the current rules.

Should we change the rules every time a player falls awkwardly and gets hurt?

Maybe we should ban tackling around the legs given how many players have suffered major ankle injuries when their foot gets caught in a bad position under a tackler?

 

[THE CHAMP]

from now on if you hurt a manly player in a tackle you sit down for 6 weeks.