The hit on Creagh

[BeeeeeRad]

This thread has me baffled

To me it looked like the ball carrier (was it Rogers?) took the ball right to the line and Creagh went with him. He came to Sa who hit him on suspicion and there was a headclash.

Play out a similar scenario 100 times and the defender will tackle the support player 100 times. You can say that technically you can't tackle a player without the ball, but when you play that flat it's simply ridiculous to make that assertion. Defenders always take out support players AT THE LINE (i.e. after the point where they would theoretically have received the ball had it been passed) simply because it's not practical not to. If a support player gets to the line and the ball-player is considering passing to him, you can't wait and see whether or not he has the ball- he'll be through the line before you've figured out whether or not he's got it.

I don't understand how it was anything other than a headclash, Sa went down holding his head, a headclash for all money.

Nothing in it at all.

I think you have it right there, from a rational and unbiased view. Technically it is a penalty because he tackled a player without the ball, but really the amount of times it happens and nothing is done says that it should be let go. If it wasn't such a big hit and he was bracing himself nothing would be said of this at all.

 

[Willow]

f**k your a pretender

just like the team you follow

no need to argue anymore, you have been defeated and shown up to be the dick everyone has come to love.

enjoy olympic park

x x x x ?

Will you still respect me in the morning young rufus?

 

[BeeeeeRad]

I did, and was a little at a loss why you started arguing semantics over an unrelated incident in trying to justify Sa's hit on Creagh.
You seem to be a little defensive about this. Don't take this the wrong way, but are 'you lot' normally used to forums where opposing opinion is taboo?

I never tried to justify it, just made a point that had Creah not been knocked over and Rogers went through to score then they would have checked for obstruction, even though it was clearly a poor read by Sa (or a deliberate low act, you be the judge). Just making a point OT about how grey the obstruction rule can be.

'Us lot' have had to put up with sh*t sprouting from Gaba and Dally all year and then Dragondad, leaguelover and dasuperhero all started with the sh*t during the week, so we are just returning the favour now. Too bad they are too chicken sh*t (or in this case rooster sh*t) to show up.

 

[Willow]

I saw it several times already but I'll take your word for it

Thanks. That's how it happened.

Regardless I think you're silly to be arguing this point according to the letter of the law. The law of reality is that the "never tackle a man without the ball" rule is ridiculous in some situations, and hence is pretty much never policed in situations like this one. I applaud the video ref and ref for showing common sense.

Well its not silly to question why it wasn't placed on report. I maintain that it was no accident. There's definitely a case there.

Of course, consistency is only a word. Whether or not the Match Review Committee follows it up remains to be seen.

 

[Willow]

'Us lot' have had to put up with sh*t sprouting from Gaba and Dally all year and then Dragondad, leaguelover and dasuperhero all started with the sh*t during the week, so we are just returning the favour now. Too bad they are too chicken sh*t (or in this case rooster sh*t) to show up.

Well I know that dally isn't even a Dragons supporter (he supports a different team every six months) and at least two others rarely post in here.

But what has that got to do with me, or this thread? No offence, but am I talking to an adult? Sometimes its a little hard to tell.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Well its not silly to question why it wasn't placed on report. I maintain that it was no accident. There's definitely a case there.

Of course, consistency is only a word. Whether or not the Match Review Committee follows it up remains to be seen.

Of course it wasn't an accident. He smashed him.

Did Sa's arm come in contact with Creagh's head though? Was it a high tackle?

If not then I don't think it should be a penalty, let alone a case for the judiciary.

Willow, I know you've been watching rugby league for many years. Surely you realise that tackles are made "on suspicion" all the time, that there is a perfectly valid reason for this, and that referees usually turn a blind eye to it out of pure common sense?

ftr, you can apply your criticisms of rufus to me as I am on the turps tonight as the missus has left me high and (not so) dry with nothing but a dozen Heinys and the footy to tide me over :sarcasm:

 

[SuperSoward]

f**k your a pretender

just like the team you follow

no need to argue anymore, you have been defeated and shown up to be the dick everyone has come to love.

enjoy olympic park

Mate, you think your King Sh*t coz the Roosters won. Get over it. Its a win. Big whoop.

And if we vs the Storm, thats not a bad thing because if you want to win the GF you've got to be able to beat any team you come up against. The Knights beat the storm, We beat the Knights, so why can't we beat the storm.

 

[adamkungl]

Hayne's a knob. The first 40 mins or so I was thinking he surely had money on the Dragons. Someone must have had a word to him at half time about the highway robbery of that try, he threw a few square ups in the second half. No way either Sa or OMeley should be suspended though.

 

[BeeeeeRad]

Well I know that dally isn't even a Dragons supporter (he supports a different team every six months) and at least two others rarely post in here.

But what has that got to do with me, or this thread? No offence, but am I talking to an adult? Sometimes its a little hard to tell.

It has nothing to do with you personally or the thread, but you are the one that quoted me when I made a point about the grey areas in the obstruction rule, so I decided to reply. The reason I made the point here was because there are already enough "what rules need to be changed?" "obstruction rule" threads been made in the NRL section, and this is similar so I thought i would raise the point.

Nope I'm not an adult, does that make a difference though? I still have more intelligence than some of the Stains fans on here, and can at least string together a few sentances that make sense.

 

[Willow]

ftr, you can apply your criticisms of rufus to me as I am on the turps tonight as the missus has left me high and (not so) dry with nothing but a dozen Heinys and the footy to tide me over :sarcasm:

lol. I'm sure you're few extra sips away from wanting to go the biff with someone over a keyboard.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

lol. I'm sure you're few extra sips away from wanting to go the biff with someone over a keyboard.

lol

nah I tend to be excessively sensible and erudite online when drunk

 

[dragonfire]

This thread has me baffled

To me it looked like the ball carrier (was it Rogers?) took the ball right to the line and Creagh went with him. He came to Sa who hit him on suspicion and there was a headclash.

Play out a similar scenario 100 times and the defender will tackle the support player 100 times. You can say that technically you can't tackle a player without the ball, but when you play that flat it's simply ridiculous to make that assertion. Defenders always take out support players AT THE LINE (i.e. after the point where they would theoretically have received the ball had it been passed) simply because it's not practical not to. If a support player gets to the line and the ball-player is considering passing to him, you can't wait and see whether or not he has the ball- he'll be through the line before you've figured out whether or not he's got it.

I don't understand how it was anything other than a headclash, Sa went down holding his head, a headclash for all money.

Nothing in it at all.

i watched the replay and Rogers as you said took the ball to the line and faked and hd two guys on him as Sa came in at full pace and hit Creagh. It was illegal and Sa had all the intent in the world. If that was a half say Mitchell Pierce getting brutalised like that it would have been a penalty for sure. For me i really will be making an effort to watch teh Sunday roast as it will definitely be on there with different angles and what not. It was a tackle on suspicion but at the same time it was cheap, if that was Gallen every guy on the forum would be calling for his head

 

[marshall stalin]

nothing wrong with the tackle on the georgian player creagh- want do you want criminal usa backing to bring sa to trial for crimes against humanity??

wake up

 

[marshall stalin]

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.

interesting can you read minds to know what sa's intentions where??- it was a clash of heads and after all sa hasn't time for a committee meeting to decide whether to tackle someone or not does he :roll:

 

[j0nesy]

I think the point that a lot of you are missing is that Creagh was not even facing Sa when he was hit, he was blind sided. You cannot tackle a player that is not in possession, sure it is often let go, but Sa is going to have a tough time arguing his case that he tackled Creagh "on suspicsion' because there was no way Creagh was in a good position to receive the ball. It looked bad, because it was bad, not the worst I've seen, but bad enough to cop a week or two.

 

[Willow]

No no Jonesy... you don't get the point. Its all about reading minds. Just ask the Marshall. lol

it was a clash of heads

Nope. Watch the tape again.

 

[Jasdragon]

interesting can you read minds to know what sa's intentions where??- it was a clash of heads and after all sa hasn't time for a committee meeting to decide whether to tackle someone or not does he :roll:

No you wait till he has the f**king ball you moron!

 

[Tommy Smith]

Thanks. That's how it happened.

Well its not silly to question why it wasn't placed on report. I maintain that it was no accident. There's definitely a case there.

Of course, consistency is only a word. Whether or not the Match Review Committee follows it up remains to be seen.

Agreed. We can only hope they are consistent on this issue and don't charge Sa as they didn't charge Taliapapa.

And as i stated that Misi had absolutely no case to answer then, i believe the same now.

 

[redvscotty]

If it appears on the roast this morning, Sa will be gooooooorrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnnn.

 

[timma]

it was a dogshot !!!

i hope benny creagh is alright