The hit on Creagh

[STSAE]

Wasn't a decoy. A player was tackled without the ball.
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.

Didnt the bloke with the ball DUMMY to Creagh???

How does the defence, 5mtrs out from the line, have to decide whose a DECOY and who isnt????

IF you run at the line with intent that you MAY recieve the pill, thats a DECOY mate.

:lol::lol:

 

[Willow]

Did the ballplayer dummy to Creagh???

Rogers was locked up in a tackle at the time.

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

He is allowed to, he's a support player.

Thats a DECOY, simple really.

Nope. He was running in support. He was hit behind the ruck well before he got into a position anyway. He was hit when Rogers was being tackled.

Why do you think its OK for a player to be taken out because he might be able to receive a pass?

 

[STSAE]

Rogers was locked up in a tackle at the time.
He is allowed to, he's a support player.
Nope. He was running in support. He was hit behind the ruck well before he got into a position anyway. He was hit when Rogers was being tackled.

Why do you think its OK for a player to be taken out because he might be able to receive a pass?

Rogers threw a dummy on the replay I saw.

Creagh is DEFINATLEY a decoy.

Hes hit 5mtrs out from our line, 1mtr from the ball carrier.

It would be interesting to see your opinion if the situation was reversed or Creagh KOed Sa.

Its not what I think its how the rules read thats important isnt it?? My view is thats life in the big bad NRL. If you want to run at the line as a DECOY you take the hit.

This has all the hallmarks of the Leroy Brown Prowler incident in Rnd 1. The emotionally involved will ALWAYS tear up. MOST other fans and people in the game knows "sh*t happens" sometimes.

:lol::lol:

 

[_Johnsy]

Didnt the bloke with the ball DUMMY to Creagh???

No, Creagh was running behind his back, never in a position to receive the ball. Are you really that dumb ?

It would be interesting to see your opinion if the situation was reversed or Creagh KOed Sa.

But it isn't reversed, if this is the basis of your defence, you need help

 

[STSAE]

No, Creagh was running behind his back, never in a position to receive the ball. Are you really that dumb ?

No Creagh was running at speed 5mtrs our from the oppositions goalline and was smashed on suspicion.

Why was he running then if he wasnt in position to recieve the ball???

Whats a decoy???? Isnt it so you can hopefully fool the defence into making an error???

Instead the play backfired and the pklayer with the ball and the decoy were hit. It happens EVERY week. Its just unfortunate someone was injured in a HEAD clash.

Why resort to the name calling??? :roll:

:lol::lol:

 

[BeeeeeRad]

i hope he gets 2 weeks out of that

I see alot of people wanting suspensions, but what will he be charged for?
Can you be charged for tackling a player without the ball?
I don't think any of you would even be complaing about this if he wasn't injured, just the fact you lost a player you want retribution for that, which is understandable.

Yes a penalty for tackling a player without the ball. That's all though, if it didn't look so bad no one would have taken a second look as it happens so often.

 

[Willow]

Rogers threw a dummy on the replay I saw.

He had the ball in both hands and out in front of him while he was running. He bent his wrist at one point. lol. I wouldn't call it a dummy.

Yeah, he could have passed it. So what? Players are allow to think about passing the ball.

Creagh is DEFINATLEY a decoy.

Spin doctoring doesn't change the fact that a player was tackled without the ball. He was running in support.

You're entitled to your opinion but I don't agree with you.

It would be interesting to see your opinion if the situation was reversed or Creagh KOed Sa.

I would have expected at least a penalty and for it to be placed on report. At least that way Easts wouldn't have been robbed of interchange because of an illegal tackle.

On the other hand, I'm certain your opinion would be somewhat different if the situation was reversed.

 

[STSAE]

He had the ball in both hands and out in front of him while he was running. He bent his wrist at one point. lol. I wouldn't call it a dummy.

Yeah, he could have passed it. So what? Players are allow to think about passing the ball.
Spin doctoring doesn't change the fact that a player was tackled without the ball. He was running in support.

You're entitled to your opinion but I don't agree with you.
I would have expected at least a penalty and for it to be placed on report. At least that way Easts wouldn't have been robbed of interchange because of an illegal tackle.

On the other hand, I'm certain your opinion would be somewhat different if the situation was reversed.

Mitchell Pearce cops some beauties after he gets kicks away, I :lol: every time, toughen up the young twinkie I say.

Opinions are like arseholes, theyre all different. Its good we disagree, I dig it.

Id say ball in both hands out in front, slight movement of the hands is a DUMMY. Irrespective the defence doesnt have the time to judge whether the pass will happen or not, especially that close to the line.

Players are ALLOWED to dummy or feign a pass or think of a pass. The defence is ALLOWED to hit someone on suspicion IF they think hes gonna get the footy. Can you disagree here???

Support/decoy. Define. Cos if someone feigns to pass to a support, to me at least, he becomes a decoy. He is USING the support to gain an advantage. Thats a DECOY. Its a simple concept really.

:lol::lol:

 

[j0nesy]

I noticed that one of the Titans players, didn't see who, was penalised for tacking Payten (I think it was) off the ball. It was nothing compared to what happened to Creagh.

 

[Willow]

Mitchell Pearce cops some beauties after he gets kicks away

So?

 

[STSAE]

I noticed that one of the Titans players, didn't see who, was penalised for tacking Payten (I think it was) off the ball. It was nothing compared to what happened to Creagh.

I saw that.

I wonder was something said to the officials after friday night???

I also wonder from that will Sa be charged for something thats happened in the game for 100yrs???

Nothing shocks me anymore with the officiating in this NewsRL run game.:sarcasm:

:lol::lol:

 

[STSAE]

So?

So what???:sarcasm:

:lol::lol:

 

[Willow]

Exactly, its entirely irrelevant.

 

[STSAE]

Exactly, its entirely irrelevant.

Well ignore it mate, I told you I was on the cans, a little latitude maybe????;-)

How bout the rest of my post Willow??? Lets debate the topic points.

I thought we had made some headway today, quite the debate we were having too. Cordial even some may drink.

:lol::lol:

 

[Willow]

I already addressed the silly 'decoy' points - with more than a few. Just going around in circles now.

My view is that Sa should have been penalised and placed on report. He should be cited but I doubt that will will happen.

We'll probably have to wear it. But if that's the criteria, let's hope we get the chance to return serve in the semis.

 

[Geohood]

I can't believe this insignificant event has been discussed for 9 pages.

If it's even reviewed by the commitee I'm gonna puke. Penalty sufficient and that's all!

 

[j0nesy]

I saw that.

I wonder was something said to the officials after friday night???

I also wonder from that will Sa be charged for something thats happened in the game for 100yrs???

Nothing shocks me anymore with the officiating in this NewsRL run game.:sarcasm:

:lol::lol:

Well I don't believe the Titans player was put on report, so if something was said to the officials they weren't told to refer it to the review committee.

 

[_Johnsy]

No Creagh was running at speed 5mtrs our from the oppositions goalline and was smashed on suspicion.

Why was he running then if he wasnt in position to recieve the ball???

Whats a decoy???? Isnt it so you can hopefully fool the defence into making an error???

Instead the play backfired and the pklayer with the ball and the decoy were hit. It happens EVERY week. Its just unfortunate someone was injured in a HEAD clash.

Why resort to the name calling??? :roll:

Didn't resort to name calling, just asked a question. not a difficult concept to see the difference.

Is it ok for you to call someone an assclown for having a different opinion in another thread, but someone asks if you are that dumb and your knickers get all twisted. Man up gaylord. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[Willow]

I can't believe this insignificant event has been discussed for 9 pages.

Quite frankly I agree with you. I thought one or two pages, a handy discussion on it, a couple of opinions, and then it would be done and dusted.

Looks like a few Easts supporters took exception to the suggestion that one of their own could play dirty.

 

[marshall stalin]

I already addressed the silly 'decoy' points - with more than a few. Just going around in circles now.

My view is that Sa should have been penalised and placed on report. He should be cited but I doubt that will will happen.

We'll probably have to wear it. But if that's the criteria, let's hope we get the chance to return serve in the semis.

and you are who to determine this- bet you have no complaints about the backslam tackle on comrade mini though - oh yes your unbiased too you epod.