The hit on Creagh

[Willow]

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 suggest you look at it again.

There was little or no head clash. Creagh was knocked off his feet and his head hit the ground first.

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.

Nope.

Sa aimed him up, attempted a hit around the chest, his elbow cocked up and that made it look ugly, Creagh never saw him coming.

No matter what way you look at it, Sa took out a player without the ball and it resulted in Saints being a man short. That's the bottom line.

 

[Geohood]

I suggest you look at it again.

There was little or no head clash. Creagh was knocked off his feet and his head hit the ground first.

Nope.

Sa aimed him up, attempted a hit around the chest, his elbow cocked up and that made it look ugly, Creagh never saw him coming.

No matter what way you look at it, Sa took out a player without the ball and it resulted in Saints being a man short. That's the bottom line.

Mason injured didn't leave us a man short?

Anyway I understand what your saying and its bad luck that he was injured... will he be right for next week?

 

[_Johnsy]

Mason injured didn't leave us a man short?

Correct me if I am wrong but,

Mason was taken around the legs in possession of the ball. His injury was not a result of ILLEGAL play from an opposition player.

 

[Geohood]

No matter how the incidents occured, the bottom line is that both teams were left a man short so one team wasn't disadvantaged over another.


Anyways, Sa won't be suspended nor O'Meley IMO.

 

[Ribs]

O'Meley has to get a couple for that. F*cking cat.

 

[_Johnsy]

geo

not being biased are we ? :roll:

 

[Geohood]

I only saw the one replay of it in the broadcast but Im pretty sure Ryles was already half way to the ground when O'Meley contacted him in the head?

 

[Geohood]

geo

not being biased are we ? :roll:

Never mate.. never.. :sarcasm:

But seriously I don't think they'll be suspended.

 

[_Johnsy]

IMO both will get a week, lucky 7 and 8 will probably get done in week 1 of finals.

 

[Willow]

Mason injured didn't leave us a man short?

What's that got to do with this?

Mason was injured in a legitimate tackle in an entirely separate incident. Creagh was taken out by an illegal tackle.

There's no logic to your line of argument and absolutely no justification for the Sa-Creagh incident.

 

[BeeeeeRad]

The stupid thing about it is that if it hadn't been such a big hit and the ball carrier (rogers?) went through it would have been checked for obstuction. Yes it was a poor read by Sa in defence but the Roosters have has 2 or 3 trys this year disallowed because of poor defensive reads and they did exactly what Sa did (without knocking the player out), that is why this whole area is stupid and needs to be less grey in the obstruction rule.

 

[tiger_nick]

i hate the dragons more then anyone but deadset how that wasnt a penalty i have no idea. maybe it was a square up after not going to the video ref for fitzgiboons try? which no doubt would have been awarded.

 

[Jasdragon]

It should have been a penalty and put on report. And wasn't far from being a send off or a binning.

 

[MattYg1]

Agree'd Fitzy should of got that try... it def should of gone to the video ref...

But its as simple as this... Sa hit a player off the ball who did not see it coming and did not brace himself for a hit causing that player to be forced from the field all together... And nothing was done about it... so i guess if any player finds themselves in a situation where you can do that from now on, they are ALLOWED TO???

all this talk about Sa didnt intend to do it... when is it ever intentional... and if it ever is intentional then the player who intentionally performs and act like that should be sacked IMMEDIATLY...

It was a malicious hit on a player not ready and it should of been penalised... send off NO, sin bin.. hmmmmm not really, Penalty DEFINATELY...

 

[_Johnsy]

Nah

Could never have been a send off or bin offence, unless his elbow made first contact with the head (which it didn't) I will be pissed if Creagh is not available for us next week.

 

[BeeeeeRad]

Agree'd Fitzy should of got that try... it def should of gone to the video ref...

But its as simple as this... Sa hit a player off the ball who did not see it coming and did not brace himself for a hit causing that player to be forced from the field all together... And nothing was done about it... so i guess if any player finds themselves in a situation where you can do that from now on, they are ALLOWED TO???

all this talk about Sa didnt intend to do it... when is it ever intentional... and if it ever is intentional then the player who intentionally performs and act like that should be sacked IMMEDIATLY...

It was a malicious hit on a player not ready and it should of been penalised... send off NO, sin bin.. hmmmmm not really, Penalty DEFINATELY...

I agree it should have been a penalty, but just a question. When you say he didn't see it coming and didn't brace himself, are you saying that if he had braced himself it would be ok?
It raises an interesting point because if he was braced he probably wouldn't have fallen over and definantly not concussed so it would not have been so blatant or looked so malicous.

 

[Jasdragon]

Nah

Could never have been a send off or bin offence, unless his elbow made first contact with the head (which it didn't) I will be pissed if Creagh is not available for us next week.

Mate anything can be a send off don't you remember Ryles in the last Storm game!

 

[MattYg1]

I agree it should have been a penalty, but just a question. When you say he didn't see it coming and didn't brace himself, are you saying that if he had braced himself it would be ok?
It raises an interesting point because if he was braced he probably wouldn't have fallen over and definantly not concussed so it would not have been so blatant or looked so malicous.

I believe that no he did not see it coming... certainly the injury makes it seem more malicious... i probably should have stated that it was malicious in its physicality more so then Sa's intentions...

But the major concern here is that he was taken out... he was lined up and hit hard without the ball in hand... which is a no no...

I can see both sides of this arguement and it certainly is not black and white...

 

[_Johnsy]

Mate anything can be a send off don't you remember Ryles in the last Storm game!

Ryles could be sent for breathing, actually he'll be sited for running last night and get 4 weeks.

 

[Cagey Mac]

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.

All the press are talking up Sa's hit as high, I think he's gone and justifiably so
The reason that we lost last night however is that Freddy's game plan was suited to the conditions and Browny's to the playing squad and dry weather footy that won the past three. Sowie should have been on the bench
God I hope we get Manly or the sharks next week and that Nightingale and Creagh are fit, especially the former.
Roosters will lose to the Broncos with or without Shrek and Sa, hopefully without as they deserve penalty for their offences