2019 GF | PREMIERS - Roosters 14-8 Raiders @ ANZ

[Cockosh]

Which is why it's bizarre you feel the need to make up rules.

The rules are already there. You can’t attack the legs of a kicker. The fact it hits his head is completely irrelevant. It was the most obvious penalty in the entire game.

 

[2 weeks]

128 pages

When Mary gets the boys home next year it will make this look like peanuts imo

200 pages at least

 

[League Unlimited News]

128 pages

When Mary gets the boys home next year it will make this look like peanuts imo

200 pages at least

Officially the biggest thread in this Game Day forum with 2544 posts so far. The top five include all three 2018 Origin matches and the 2017 Origin series opener.

 

[Haffa]

128 pages

When Mary gets the boys home next year it will make this look like peanuts imo

200 pages at least

If tries off kicks counted Mary would get it to 300 plus.

 

[Sonny83]

geez..imagine JWH do similar tackle to Canberra #7. Sin bin any day of the week.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Officially the biggest thread in this Game Day forum with 2544 posts so far. The top five include all three 2018 Origin matches and the 2017 Origin series opener.

So we need Easts in more grand finals. It’s clearly good for the game.

 

[GAZF]

So we need Easts in more grand finals. It’s clearly good for the game.

1790 in 2018 and 864 in 2013. 1810 in 2014 for reference.

 

[Cockosh]

geez..imagine JWH do similar tackle to Canberra #7. Sin bin any day of the week.

If JWH this he would need to seek refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy

 

[GAZF]

If JWH this he would need to seek refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy

This is misleading and a direct attack on Sia's character. Taking it back two frames shows him in a much more favourable (and accurate) light.

 

[Cockosh]

This is misleading and a direct attack on Sia's character. Taking it back two frames shows him in a much more favourable (and accurate) light.

I wouldn’t do that. I have much respect for him. Great player, great man. But facts are facts.

 

[Cockosh]

Perspective is a funny thing.

 

[MattLodgeIsMyHero]

Anyone know how they managed to get over 100k crowd for the 99 grand final, while every gf since has only been 80-82k? Did they remove seats or something, cause surely a gf since that time would have drawn in over 100k...

 

[Haffa]

Anyone know how they managed to get over 100k crowd for the 99 grand final, while every gf since has only been 80-82k? Did they remove seats or something, cause surely a gf since that time would have drawn in over 100k...

Are you serious?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_Australia

 

[nick87]

The rules are already there. You can’t attack the legs of a kicker. The fact it hits his head is completely irrelevant. It was the most obvious penalty in the entire game.

no, the rules are there and you just don’t understand them. As per the rules, you can’t attack the legs of a kicker after the ball is kicked
If you commit to it before the ball is kick, no penalty is given

Sia got the football. End of story.

 

[Cockosh]

no, the rules are there and you just don’t understand them. As per the rules, you can’t attack the legs of a kicker after the ball is kicked
If you commit to it before the ball is kick, no penalty is given

Sia got the football. End of story.

No I’m pretty sure I understand that what’s happening in that picture is illegal regardless of any other circumstances. It’s a clear cut penalty.

 

[nick87]

Except it’s not.
Because he committed to the attempt before the ball was kicked. I don’t what else to tell you, mate
The rule book... which admittedly was not always adhered to last Sunday... makes it expressway clear that you are wrong.

It’s not a penalty and had the raiders scored off that, it wouldn’t have been disallowed.

if that was against the rules, they would have to outlaw charge downs. Because by definition a charge down is attacking the football, which is being kicked by a leg, so by definition, a charge down is to attack the legs of a kicker

the rule is written specifically in a way to legalise charge downs but to put the onus on the defender to make sure he times his attempt so that he is attacking the football... when you successfully charge a football down, you’ve succeeded in attacking the football...

Name me one time a kick has been successfully charged down and a player has been penalised for attacking the legs?

 

[Cockosh]

Except it’s not.
Because he committed to the attempt before the ball was kicked. I don’t what else to tell you, mate
The rule book... which admittedly was not always adhered to last Sunday... makes it expressway clear that you are wrong.

It’s not a penalty and had the raiders scored off that, it wouldn’t have been disallowed.

if that was against the rules, they would have to outlaw charge downs. Because by definition a charge down is attacking the football, which is being kicked by a leg, so by definition, a charge down is to attack the legs of a kicker

the rule is written specifically in a way to legalise charge downs but to put the onus on the defender to make sure he times his attempt so that he is attacking the football... when you successfully charge a football down, you’ve succeeded in attacking the football...

Name me one time a kick has been successfully charged down and a player has been penalised for attacking the legs?

On NRL.com
NRL Laws & Interpretations 2019 page 4

Tackling a Kicker
When affecting a tackle on a kicker, the defender must make a genuine attempt to tackle which is not:
1 . Late
2 . High or
3 . Dangerous

Unless you want to argue that the tackle isn’t dangerous then then as I repeatedly stated it is clear cut penalty, everyday of the week, 99 time out of 100

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/documentation/nrl-laws-and-interpretations-2019-final.pdf

 

[Tommy Smith]

On NRL.com
NRL Laws & Interpretations 2019 page 4

Tackling a Kicker
When affecting a tackle on a kicker, the defender must make a genuine attempt to tackle which is not:
1 . Late
2 . High or
3 . Dangerous

Unless you want to argue that the tackle isn’t dangerous then then as I repeatedly stated it is clear cut penalty, everyday of the week, 99 time out of 100

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/documentation/nrl-laws-and-interpretations-2019-final.pdf

Also it's evidently only a penalty 98 times out of 100 because it's happened twice now to Keary without recourse... vs Brisbane at Suncorp with 10min to go and in the GF.

 

[bileduct]

On NRL.com
NRL Laws & Interpretations 2019 page 4

Tackling a Kicker
When affecting a tackle on a kicker, the defender must make a genuine attempt to tackle which is not:
1 . Late
2 . High or
3 . Dangerous

Unless you want to argue that the tackle isn’t dangerous then then as I repeatedly stated it is clear cut penalty, everyday of the week, 99 time out of 100

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/documentation/nrl-laws-and-interpretations-2019-final.pdf

Neither Cummins or any of the other onfield referees called dangerous contact from Soliola. The video ref, who had the chance to review the footage during the break in play, did not intervene and call dangerous contact from Soliola. The Match Review Committee, which reviews each match for reportable incidents that were missed by the refs, did not cite Soliola for dangerous contact.

Soliola was committed to a genuine attempt to tackle Keary well before the ball was kicked. He was aiming above the waist, not at the legs. Keary was not only too slow to get his kick away, he then jumped into the tackle after contact had already been made, as illustrated by your own screenshot.

Here is the point of contact.

 

[Cockosh]

Neither Cummins or any of the other onfield referees called dangerous contact from Soliola. The video ref, who had the chance to review the footage during the break in play, did not intervene and call dangerous contact from Soliola. The Match Review Committee, which reviews each match for reportable incidents that were missed by the refs, did not cite Soliola for dangerous contact.

Soliola was committed to a genuine attempt to tackle Keary well before the ball was kicked. He was aiming above the waist, not at the legs. Keary was not only too slow to get his kick away, he then jumped into the tackle after contact had already been made, as illustrated by your own screenshot.

Here is the point of contact.

So you are asserting the tackle wasn’t dangerous?