The hit on Creagh

[Willow]

The Sa/Creagh collision was just a shame that Creagh had to go off the field... Sa just thought he was gonna get the ball there wasn't too much in it, the ball carrier and Creagh were nearly touching each other.. big overreaction IMO.

It was no accident.

Firstly, Sa only had eyes for a player without the ball coming in behind the ruck where a tackle was taking place.

Sa came in to deliberately take out support player (Ben Creagh) - there was intent to make an illegal tackle.

As it turned out it was dangerous as well - Sa's elbow, after first making contact with the chest, lifted high during the clash. Creagh was knocked out cold, and took no further part.

Sa wasn't penalised, nor was he placed on report. At the very least it should have been placed on report and penalised (given that a replacement was required and it was an illegal tackle).

It cost us a main player, an interchange, and the Roosters got a rest defending their own goal line.

The Match Review Committee should pick up on it, but for that to happen we will have rely on them doing their job in a consistent manner.

 

[drake]

Hope fake tan man Shane Hayne misses next weekend. Absolute stuff up there. Saa is a f**king cat.

 

[sretsoor]

Should have been a penalty to the Roosters, obstruction.

 

[dragonsman4eva]

I agree with you fully. but whats the bet that he wont get suspended , thats four weeks suspension straight up F##k the judicary there not gonna do anything but also it doesnt benefit the dragons in any way

 

[petetheileet]

poor creagh...illegal play, dont know why nothing was done...

any news on him yet???

f**k i got drenched out there

 

[Willow]

Should have been a penalty to the Roosters, obstruction.

Jokes aside, the Roosters were given a fair bit of latitude in the match.

The Sponge thinking that being captain entitled him to whinge more than ever, in between his constant illegal plays in the ruck area (eg foream in the face and the occasional cheap shot).

Btw, has O'Meley completing forgotten how to tackle a bloke facing him? Perhaps he thinks the kidneys is where a player keeps his brains nowadays.

But the actions of Bwaith and Co were not turning points, even Sa's hit on Creagh (as crucial as it was) should not have decided the match. The game was won by Easts defending better when it counted and putting together a better kick and chase game.

Nevertheless, Sa's hit on Creagh was illegal, initially intentional, and ultimately reckless. He should be charged.

 

[St. Brett]

I question if it was a send off.

Players are being coached to 'sweep the leg' in Karate Kid terms today.
Creagh was put out of commission deliberately.

At least give it ten in the bin.

Dýa watch the Knights Broncos game?
There was a similar incident almost like the Craig Wing Riley Brown earlier in the year in that game too.

Think it was Ennis on Kid Gidley.
Gidley was tackled by 2 players and Ennis came in late (a third tackler) and dived, forearms raised, straight for his lower back.

It's intentional.

Instructions must be to cripple players.

If they're gonna do it do it to the Storm boys.

By the way...Creagh was playing well up until then too.
You lost round one at the SFS you finished last there too, Dragons.

P.S. And are you surprised Easts won with Hayne in charge last night?
How do you think the Knights beat the Storm last Saturday?
Hayne is the biggest brown nose in our game.
That's why Peter Peters loves him so much at Brookvale.

 

[Geohood]

Look how close Rogers was to Creagh.. when you're defending your line you need to commit to your tackle and that's all the Sa was doing. All it needed was a sneaky offload from Rogers and Creagh would have been over if Sa didn't commit to the tackle.

I agree it should have been a penalty, but nothing more.

 

[j0nesy]

When I watched it during the match my first thought was just a penalty to the Dragons. I watched it again this morning and thought it was a deliberate attempt to take out Creagh off the ball and injure him in the process.

My bet is that it will be picked up by the match review committee, because remember the Roosters are playing the Broncos next week. Meaning the Roosters will be without Mason and probably Omeley and Sa.

 

[_Johnsy]

man taken without the ball, and high. He will have at least 1 week on the sideline.

 

[St. Brett]

Eitherway I think we were robbed of a good game because of the rain last night.
That would have been a cracker of a match had it not been soaked.

I'll never forget that semi's game with Tigers and Dragons a few years back at the SFS and the electricity that came through the TV that night.
Gee that was a good game.

Don't write the Dragon's off just yet.

Even tonight The Panfers have a chance of upstaging Manly with these f**ked conditions.

All things said......great defense by The Goosters last night though.

 

[Big Poppa Pump]

Jokes aside, the Roosters were given a fair bit of latitude in the match.

The Sponge thinking that being captain entitled him to whinge more than ever, in between his constant illegal plays in the ruck area (eg foream in the face and the occasional cheap shot).

Btw, has O'Meley completing forgotten how to tackle a bloke facing him? Perhaps he thinks the kidneys is where a player keeps his brains nowadays.

But the actions of Bwaith and Co were not turning points, even Sa's hit on Creagh (as crucial as it was) should not have decided the match. The game was won by Easts defending better when it counted and putting together a better kick and chase game.

Nevertheless, Sa's hit on Creagh was illegal, initially intentional, and ultimately reckless. He should be charged.

Kudos for being honest.

 

[_Johnsy]

The roosters won last night because they were more desperate than we were, fairly bloody simple.

 

[Tommy Smith]

It was no different to Taliapapa's hit on Tongue. And how many weeks did he get?

The precedent has been set. I personally think it was just an accident. The ball carrier and Creagh were so close together that Sa thought he was going to get the ball so he hit him hard.

This thing happens in contact sport. Of course if it happened to one of my players then i might be the one having a whinge instead.

 

[_Johnsy]

if a player who never came in contact with the ball, never looked like getting the ball (he was behind the ball runner, the ball runner had his back towards creagh) is knocked unconscious then someone needs a stint on the sideline. Sa is that person.

 

[BeeeeeRad]

The way I saw it (yes throught by red and blue eyes) was that he was lining up a potential ball runner and was expecting th pass to be thrown but it never was (can't remember if he threw a dummy). This means that it should be a penalty for tackling the player without the ball, but nothing futher as Sa's intentions weren't to take Creagh out and hurt him. It was an unfortunate event, especially that it happened to a key player of yours.

BTW it was a great game thanks Drags', was awesome listening to both team's chants on tv also, so kudos to the Chook pen and the army for getting out there in those conditions.

 

[Willow]

Kudos for being honest.

I said that to make sure that issue has nothing to do with the result - there's other threads for that and I already said Easts deserved the win.

Do you agree that Sa should be charged?

 

[j0nesy]

A potential ball runner does not usually have his back turned to the ball carrier and the defence. I thought the same as you at first, but have a look at it again if you get the chance. Sa will cop 1 match, I'm pretty sure of that.

 

[Big Poppa Pump]

I said that to make sure that issue has nothing to do with the result - there's other threads for that and I already said Easts deserved the win.

Do you agree that Sa should be charged?

I don't think he should be but I expect he will. It did not look good however the damage was done by a head clash. If the heads didn't connect Creagh stays on the field.

I guess they'll argue that he was going in to make a tackle on the ball runner & Creagh as a decoy runner basically got in the way. His concussion was the result of an accidental head clash.

 

[Ribs]

Its pretty black and white really. You can line up players on suspicion but you need to be smart enough to know when to go through with it.

If you go through with a hit on a player that doesnt receive the ball then its illegal.

Rule states that you cannot tackle a player not in possession.

What Hayne and the video were thinking is beyond comprehension, but if you watch how Hayne anally penetrated the game with his ruck policing then no surprises there at all really.