What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The hit on Creagh

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
111,259
Agreed. We can only hope they are consistent on this issue and don't charge Sa as they didn't charge Taliapapa.
They are not consistent, but that's hardly breaking news.

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

You're entitled to your opinion but I disagree.
 

Quigs

Immortal
Messages
35,204
My opinion on it....

I hope that we see a lot more of the decoys being taken out on suspicion.

Its all to do with split second timing - accepting the perfect pass and cracking the line.

I hope to see more decoys taken out. (not seriously hurt but knocked arse over tit)

They are running those decoy lines to put doubt into the defenders minds. My motto, when in doubt tackle the bastard and then worry about the consequences.

The problem with the modern game is that people forget that it is contact sport, played by big fit mobile blokes who want to contact.

More big hits - suspicion or not - the better.

For the record - he did smash Creigh. And it was a case of stopping him farting in church.

Cheers
Quigs
 

drake

First Grade
Messages
5,433
My opinion on it....

I hope that we see a lot more of the decoys being taken out on suspicion.

Its all to do with split second timing - accepting the perfect pass and cracking the line.

I hope to see more decoys taken out. (not seriously hurt but knocked arse over tit)

They are running those decoy lines to put doubt into the defenders minds. My motto, when in doubt tackle the bastard and then worry about the consequences.

The problem with the modern game is that people forget that it is contact sport, played by big fit mobile blokes who want to contact.

More big hits - suspicion or not - the better.

For the record - he did smash Creigh. And it was a case of stopping him farting in church.

Cheers
Quigs
Sweet. Blockers.
Next, crash helmets and massive shoulder guards. Tights and gloves. Dee-Fence and Off-Fence teams. Kicking teams and marching bands.

And we shalt call it gridiron, and yea, it shalt take 400 minutes to watch an 80 minute game.


Look, Matthew Johns even reluctantly said Sa should have been penalised. For monkey boy to say that, it was blatantly illegal. Sterlo sounded like he wanted to vomit.

But I suppose that forumites know a lot more about League that Sterlo. He's just some Johnny come lately who knows sweet FA.

Stalin, leave your racist bullsh*t and your prehistoric political rhetoric at the door. Don't you have a couple of hundred million russians to exterminate?
Communism = epic fail.
Ronald Reagan, an absent minded B grade actor, > the USSR
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
111,259
Quigsy, that only way that works is if you can show that he was indeed a decoy runner. Creagh was running in support. Look at the tape, there's a few angles on the replays and just fiddle with that new fangle pause button on the remote.

Its pretty obvious that Sa aimed up with the intention of taking a support player out of the line.

As it turned out, Sa blind-sided Creagh who was knocked off his feet. His head hit the ground and he was knocked out cold (no real head clash). It was the consequence of an illegal tackle and the perp copped nothing more than a scratch on the noggin from another player's boot.

It was the 5th tackle, Rogers (the ball carrier) was locked up in a tackle, Creagh was coming around behind the ruck, no way he was a decoy runner. Easts were under the hammer defending their goal line. We can only speculate what the next play would have been.

Quigsy, us old farts love watching blokes hurting each other and doing stuff that would hospitalise you and I for a year. But the pleasure is watching them doing it legally and then getting up and giving it back in return. There's a reason why we don't have coat hangers and spear tackles anymore....they're relics from the past and no longer part of football.
 

j0nesy

Bench
Messages
3,747
No no Jonesy... you don't get the point. Its all about reading minds. Just ask the Marshall. lol

I'm sure Mr Stallin will be pleased to know that I am in fact psychic*. There are three things I would like to reveal:
1. Sa knew that Creagh didn't have the ball, but still choose to hit him.
2. Sa intended to hurt Creagh
3. The Survivor is a transvestite, (s)he loves to get dressed up in his grannies undies and bra, and play with his teenage boy boobs, which his mum tells him is just puppy fat.



















* May not be true, but I once took an online psychic test while pissed. :sarcasm:
 

Quigs

Immortal
Messages
35,204
Quigsy, that only way that works is if you can show that he was indeed a decoy runner. Creagh was running in support. Look at the tape, there's a few angles on the replays and just fiddle with that new fangle pause button on the remote.

Its pretty obvious that Sa aimed up with the intention of taking a support player out of the line.

As it turned out, Sa blind-sided Creagh who was knocked off his feet. His head hit the ground and he was knocked out cold (no real head clash). It was the consequence of an illegal tackle and the perp copped nothing more than a scratch on the noggin from another player's boot.

It was the 5th tackle, Rogers (the ball carrier) was locked up in a tackle, Creagh was coming around behind the ruck, no way he was a decoy runner. Easts were under the hammer defending their goal line. We can only speculate what the next play would have been.

Quigsy, us old farts love watching blokes hurting each other and doing stuff that would hospitalise you and I for a year. But the pleasure is watching them doing it legally and then getting up and giving it back in return. There's a reason why we don't have coat hangers and spear tackles anymore....they're relics from the past and no longer part of football.


Yes and in the context of the contest it might of stopped you blokes from scoring a try in a very important game.

Great defence I say. Dinosaur or not I love it.

It's all this disecting every second of every tackle (players coming into contact with other players) that is killing the game.

The game is a boring as batsh!t these days because they have taken the contact out of the bloody game. Its had to be refined to grapples and chicken wings and ---- arhhhhh give me strength.

You want to run decoys or off the hip support play only metres from the tryline then you should be prepared to cop a hit or three. If you are a blockheaded forward you would expect to be hit.

If you are the same bloke defending your line and a bloke comes at you like that then you would want to put a hit on him.

Fair dinkum I thought a game only went for 80 minutes. These days they go on for days and days. You've got three officials on the paddock, an imposter upstairs, the option of on the spot replays, and now they have a match review.

If those on the day, cant get it right then unless it is first degree murder - let it farkin' ride.

The game is so politically correct it is embarrasing.

You Stains might remember back to when Trenty Boy was picked up when a nine cameraman (or similar) found a swinging arm in a replay.

I honestly believe that the players are embarrased with what goes on and the carry ons in todays game.

Cheers
Quigs
 
Last edited:

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
111,259
Its not complicated or politcally correct, its the laws of the game. You can't tackle a player without the ball.

There's no way Creagh was a decoy, he was running in support. Geez, since when isn't a team mate allowed to support the ball carrier? I assume we both follow the same game Quigsy... rugby league?

Btw, I also hate seeing video refs ruling on every little thing, imo it went hit ridiculous when they stated ruling on stripping in the tackle. Last night in the Sharks v Cowboys game, Cummins seemed terrified to make make a decision without checking upstairs,
 

Quigs

Immortal
Messages
35,204
Its not complicated or politcally correct, its the laws of the game. You can't tackle a player without the ball.

There's no way Creagh was a decoy, he was running in support. Geez, since when isn't a team mate allowed to support the ball carrier? I assume we both follow the same game Quigsy... rugby league?

Btw, I also hate seeing video refs ruling on every little thing, imo it went hit ridiculous when they stated ruling on stripping in the tackle. Last night in the Sharks v Cowboys game, Cummins seemed terrified to make make a decision without checking upstairs,

Your interpretation of how the game should be played.

But he did and he did smash him good and hard.

But you might of hit the nail right on the head there Willow.

It's the rules of the game or the fact that there are too many rules.

They, the wisemen, have farked up a very simple game with their thousands of rule changes. But hey the TV ratings are great arn't they?

Quigs rule interpretation of the hit.

Sa got him a beauty. Great team hit. Got the result for his team.
Creigh and or Stain George owe him one next time their paths cross.

Infact the Stains should of got him during the game. Nothing illegal if you want to be like that, but got him just the same.

Oh thats right, that is not allowed anymore.

Boring isn't it. Ahhhh thank god for the Match Review. That will settle it.

Cheers
Quigs
 
Last edited:

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
111,259
Well Quigsy, I also think too many rules have been made up by people who know jack schitt, but I am referring to a fundamental rule.

If it was American Football you might have something. While we're at it, we could also make forward passes legal.

Btw its fathers day, and I have some tonic water to drink while I cook up some lean meat with my George Foreman teflon coated low fat cooker.

Even us old farts have to change, or die.
 

Quigs

Immortal
Messages
35,204
While we're at it, we could also make forward passes legal.

I hope so, remember we've got Trenty Boy coming in 2009. He was the king of em.

Speaking of rules........

How come you are cooking of fathers day?

You could be setting a precendent that we fathers can never come back from.

Me personally, I am still trying to get over the fact that we gave women the vote.

Happy fathers day anyway you stinking old stain and to all the other Stinking old Stain Fathers out there (even you Drakesy,)

Cheers
Quigs
 
Last edited:

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
111,259
Happy fathers day to you too scummer.

I cook because it gives me a sense of independence in a world where I have no authority. Totalitarians like Marshall Stalin and other killers of free anarchy put an end such pipe dreams.

Yes, perhaps I'm reading too much into the philosophy of George Foreman... but I figured if a big bloke like him can cook, who am I to argue?

If it makes you feel any better, I don't wash the dishes.
 

Quigs

Immortal
Messages
35,204
If it makes you feel any better, I had a bowl of cereal with peaches and dried appricots and some toast.

Kids have grown up and flown (but have rung in) and my missus is away at work.

Got to pick her up at 3pm.

And guess what - I've just washed up. (after two nights of batching there was a few)

Cheers
Quigs
 

j0nesy

Bench
Messages
3,747
I hope so, remember we've got Trenty Boy coming in 2009. He was the king of em.

Haha, too true :lol: On the rare occasion when he does put a player in the gap, it usually is line-ball at best, as a Shark's supporter I'm sure you'll be referring to them as 'flat passes'.
 

j0nesy

Bench
Messages
3,747
On the fooy show Andrew Johns said he couldn't believe it wasn't atleast a penalty, probably a suspension.

edit:
On the roast Sterling said it should have been a penalty, when asked whether it deserved a suspension, he said he didn't think so.
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,687
I'm sure Mr Stallin will be pleased to know that I am in fact psychic*. There are three things I would like to reveal:
1. Sa knew that Creagh didn't have the ball, but still choose to hit him.
2. Sa intended to hurt Creagh
3. The Survivor is a transvestite, (s)he loves to get dressed up in his grannies undies and bra, and play with his teenage boy boobs, which his mum tells him is just puppy fat.
* May not be true, but I once took an online psychic test while pissed. :sarcasm:

Don't worry after a good lie down and some therapy i am sure they will help you get back on track :crazy:
 
Last edited:

STSAE

Juniors
Messages
2,170
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:

Has anyone actually checked the RULES about this????

I thought you could hit a DECOY on suspicion IF you think he may recieve the pill????

As you said it was a headclash anyway, no swinging arm etc.

As far as I know, there is no charge available to make from a hit thats only been around since 1908.

:lol::lol:
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
111,259
Has anyone actually checked the RULES about this????

I thought you could hit a DECOY on suspicion IF you think he may recieve the pill????
Wasn't a decoy. A player was tackled without the ball.
STSAE said:
As you said it was a headclash anyway
Watch the tape again, it was Creagh's head hitting the ground where most of the impact took place. Not that it matters, the issue is about the man being tackled without the ball.

Should have been a penalty but hey, they ignored it on the field.
 

STSAE

Juniors
Messages
2,170
Its not complicated or politcally correct, its the laws of the game. You can't tackle a player without the ball.

There's no way Creagh was a decoy, he was running in support. Geez, since when isn't a team mate allowed to support the ball carrier? I assume we both follow the same game Quigsy... rugby league?

Btw, I also hate seeing video refs ruling on every little thing, imo it went hit ridiculous when they stated ruling on stripping in the tackle. Last night in the Sharks v Cowboys game, Cummins seemed terrified to make make a decision without checking upstairs,

Did the ballplayer dummy to Creagh???

Did Creagh run AT the line AS IF he would recieve the ball??

Thats a DECOY, simple really.

:lol::lol:
 

Latest posts

Top