2021 R15 Fri - Penrith 38-12 Sydney @ BlueBet

[big hit!]

Well thats why we're not playing him every week

Really! Because the only match he missed before last night since making his debut in Rd 4 was rd 12 v Canberra. And that's because one of his shoulders was already busted.

 

[big hit!]

Ok 12-6. Whatever.

We would have a better chance of not conceding the lead with 13 on the field wouldn't you agree?

What would you have liked SST to do there? Leapfrog over him?

Cords and friend both got most of their knocks from tackling, not being tackled.

Outcome is irrelevant. Sin bins are going to be the norm going forward.

Let's get the sin bin right. The directive at the moment is any forceful high contact is a sin bin, even when a ball carrier puts himself in that position by being a spud like Toleman was last night and tripping over his own shoe laces. Reece Robson is 5ft tall. He'd be lucky to come up to Aiden's ribs.

The defending team shouldn't be penalised like the Cowboys and Roosters were last night, when the tackler isn't negligent or reckless and the high contact is caused by the ball carrier falling into a tackle.

 

[The_Frog]

The defending team shouldn't be penalised like the Cowboys and Roosters were last night, when the tackler isn't negligent or reckless and the high contact is caused by the ball carrier falling into a tackle.

That's really going to help when the lawyers come knocking.

 

[soc123_au]

Pereiera hit him late for starters and with a swinging arm. Teddy dropped mildly.

I didn't say last night should have been play on. Penalty is sufficient.

I'll start by saying I dont like the sin bin being used in situations where the attacking player falls into it.

But to suggest Teddy fell mildly is laughable. An avalanche falls with less velocity than Teddy and to get much lower he would have needed a backhoe.

 

[big hit!]

That's really going to help when the lawyers come knocking.

So remove contact and tackling from the sport effective immediately. Why is rugby league still a contact sport if that's the reasoning?

Incidental high contact is a part of the game and is never going to be removed from play as long as the rules permit tackling.

 

[ColdWetPanther]

The defending team shouldn't be penalised like the Cowboys and Roosters were last night, when the tackler isn't negligent or reckless and the high contact is caused by the ball carrier falling into a tackle.

I disagree. I think that SST was negligent last night. That was going to be a ‘high’ shot regardless of what Cleary did. He could have tackled lower.

I think we need to get past the view that it is alright to hit someone in their upper chest, and if the attacker happens to fall a couple of inches (or The defender just misses, or the defender’s arm ‘bounces up off the ball’) then that is alright and an acceptable part of the risk of playing league.

I have watched rugby league for close to 35 years now. I do remember some big hits fondly but none of them were high. What I remember more of is the skilful players; Preston Campbell chipping and chasing, Matt Rogers turning 90 degrees without losing any speed, Brandy leaving a tackler in his wake. Rugby league will survive without players getting hit in the head; does anyone here really think it will survive if it allows people to continue to get hit?

 

[big hit!]

I disagree. I think that SST was negligent last night. That was going to be a ‘high’ shot regardless of what Cleary did. He could have tackled lower.

I think we need to get past the view that it is alright to hit someone in their upper chest, and if the attacker happens to fall a couple of inches (or The defender just misses, or the defender’s arm ‘bounces up off the ball’) then that is alright and an acceptable part of the risk of playing league.

I have watched rugby league for close to 35 years now. I do remember some big hits fondly but none of them were high. What I remember more of is the skilful players; Preston Campbell chipping and chasing, Matt Rogers turning 90 degrees without losing any speed, Brandy leaving a tackler in his wake. Rugby league will survive without players getting hit in the head; does anyone here really think it will survive if it allows people to continue to get hit?

That's not what I described. The ball carriers were falling as the respective tackles were being made. That is not the fault of the tackler. Furthermore, the tackler does not have the ability to adjust when the target suddenly lowers when they've committed to to the tackle.

If folks are concerned about incidental high contact, then eliminate tackling from the game immediately. It is always going to be there.

 

[forby]

Braith Anastasia said something interesting (for a change).
Robinson was all in favour of the crackdown and decisions on falling players until the decisions started going against the Roosters. Now he is questioning and complaining.

 

[Valheru]

What would I like SST to do? Bend his knees and tackle lower. My point is even without Cleary falling (which he did) the tackle would have been around the upper chest at best. Needs to be a duty of care from the defender.

And in terms of Friend and ‘Cords’ the latter tackles that caused the later concussions were from them tackling, but the high tackles that we accepted over the years because ‘they were slipping’ contributed to the irreversible damage that has been done to their brain.

And no I can’t point to specific evidence to support this, but I will bet all the money in my pocket versus all the money in you pocket that if I watch a random 5 games of Roosters over the past 5 years that those two players were involved in, I will find a least 5 occasions where those players were hit in the head.

Tackling the upper chest is legal. The tackler shouldn't have to anticipate someone slipping over.

You would lose all your money in that case.

 

[Valheru]

Braith Anastasia said something interesting (for a change).
Robinson was all in favour of the crackdown and decisions on falling players until the decisions started going against the Roosters. Now he is questioning and complaining.

Well thats because braith is an imbecile and completely wrong.

 

[Valheru]

I disagree. I think that SST was negligent last night. That was going to be a ‘high’ shot regardless of what Cleary did. He could have tackled lower.

I think we need to get past the view that it is alright to hit someone in their upper chest, and if the attacker happens to fall a couple of inches (or The defender just misses, or the defender’s arm ‘bounces up off the ball’) then that is alright and an acceptable part of the risk of playing league.

I have watched rugby league for close to 35 years now. I do remember some big hits fondly but none of them were high. What I remember more of is the skilful players; Preston Campbell chipping and chasing, Matt Rogers turning 90 degrees without losing any speed, Brandy leaving a tackler in his wake. Rugby league will survive without players getting hit in the head; does anyone here really think it will survive if it allows people to continue to get hit?

There is not a chance that was going to be high if he didn't slip.

 

[Valheru]

I'll start by saying I dont like the sin bin being used in situations where the attacking player falls into it.

But to suggest Teddy fell mildly is laughable. An avalanche falls with less velocity than Teddy and to get much lower he would have needed a backhoe.

Pereira came rushing out of the line Nd coat hangered teddy after he passes the ball. It isn't even remotely similar to the case last night.

The Burr one on teddy was very similar and also should not have been a binning

 

[forby]

Valheru, so you want suspect tackles against roosters as sin bins or send offs and those by roosters as play on!
Be reasonable and accept that he hit Cleary in the head and get on with things.
You are sounding quite salty today!

 

[Bazal]

What would I like SST to do? Bend his knees and tackle lower. My point is even without Cleary falling (which he did) the tackle would have been around the upper chest at best. Needs to be a duty of care from the defender.

And in terms of Friend and ‘Cords’ the latter tackles that caused the later concussions were from them tackling, but the high tackles that we accepted over the years because ‘they were slipping’ contributed to the irreversible damage that has been done to their brain.

And no I can’t point to specific evidence to support this, but I will bet all the money in my pocket versus all the money in you pocket that if I watch a random 5 games of Roosters over the past 5 years that those two players were involved in, I will find a least 5 occasions where those players were hit in the head.

I particularly enjoy that you wanted to "correct some facts" earlier but then dribble out this...mind you I stopped reading at this blatant falsehood

That was going to be a ‘high’ shot regardless of what Cleary did.

Chinly was practically on his arse he'd slipped so far.

SSTs arm was down by his side. It was a horrendous decision and for Klein and Perenara to say there were no mitigating circumstances is abysmal.

There's zero way to predict what the result would have been otherwise but it's inarguable that the decision changed the game from a cracking contest into a blitz. Vlad's wrecking the game, simple

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

I particularly enjoy that you wanted to "correct some facts" earlier but then dribble out this...mind you I stopped reading at this blatant falsehood



Chinly was practically on his arse he'd slipped so far.

SSTs arm was down by his side. It was a horrendous decision and for Klein and Perenara to say there were no mitigating circumstances is abysmal.

There's zero way to predict what the result would have been otherwise but it's inarguable that the decision changed the game from a cracking contest into a blitz. Vlad's wrecking the game, simple

Well said Baz

Assuming this is a fraction of a second post hit, you can see Cleary’s fending arm is in between them which you’d think was first point of contact. SST himself bent and not upright, suggests he was never going high.

 

[Munky]

The pic is the moment just before contact, his arm is at a 45 degree angle to the ground.

Honestly not sure what could have been done to avoid the contact.

 

[Sans Souci Saint]

Lol what a load of shit.

Pereira was a send off under any rules in any year.

Robbo said at the beginning of all this he wanted to see the serious incidents dealt with on field which was in reference to his 5/8 getting a punctured lung through foul play that didn't even result in a penalty. He never said he wants every instance of high contact to be a binning

Well just go ahead and put Robbo and Nick in the bunker then, dicknose.

 

[Pantherjim.]

Next time we play the Roosters, Brian Fletcher will have to plead with the match officials to go easy on the head high tackles from Roosters players, just so their fans don’t feel so hard done by when we wallop them again by 20+

 

[Sans Souci Saint]

Valheru, so you want suspect tackles against roosters as sin bins or send offs and those by roosters as play on!
Be reasonable and accept that he hit Cleary in the head and get on with things.
You are sounding quite salty today!

He’s definitely sucked the vinegar out of somebody’s douche bag!

 

[Sans Souci Saint]

Pereira came rushing out of the line Nd coat hangered teddy after he passes the ball. It isn't even remotely similar to the case last night.

The Burr one on teddy was very similar and also should not have been a binning

So Periera was running as fast as he could with intent to tackle. Teddy slipped as always.

Sin Bin.

Go have a Bex and a lie down, Valerie.