Blair using his head

[_Johnsy]

does he doc ?

If the first point of contact is Reynolds head, then yes.
http://www.playnrl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ARL-Rules-book-2016.pdf
Section 15
PLAYER?S MISCONDUCT
(b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an
opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

 

[_Johnsy]

Interesting that Hodges is a dog for tackling Morris while on the ground, yet it's OK when Burgess does it. The only issue I had with it was the cheap shot with his right arm to Ofahengaue. That was malicious and aimed at hurting him.

On Blair should get a couple of weeks with a guilty plea.

Short memory, or re-writing events. Not surprising though.

Morris had obviously wrecked his ankle, writhing in pain. The only aspect that made Hodges effort a "dog shot" was that Morris was obviously in agony (anyone who isn't blind could see that he wasn't able to get to his feet). No penalty though, just an indicator of the type of bloke Hodges is. The same may be true of Sam.

 

[Snappy]

If the first point of contact is Reynolds head, then yes.
.

huh ? So that means he has a broken jaw ?

 

[_Johnsy]

huh ? So that means he has a broken jaw ?

I'll type it again, just for you. Fingers crossed it sinks in the second time.

If the first point of contact is Reynolds head, then yes. This makes it an illegal tackle.
http://www.playnrl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ARL-Rules-book-2016.pdf
Section 15
PLAYER?S MISCONDUCT
(b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an
opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

Hope that helps.

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

Morris looks like a downie though so hodges was just trying his own form of eugenics. Maybe both should've combusted upon impact.

 

[Snappy]

I'll type it again, just for you. Fingers crossed it sinks in the second time.

Hope that helps.

Oh Johnsy, I thought you were sharper than that. Read again what I quoted, and what I posted.

I'll give you a tip. The word 'doc' is meaningful. I'll highlight another bit which may help.

A player has a broken jaw as a result of a clearly illegal tackle.

does he doc ?

.

 

[_Johnsy]

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I thought you were making the point it wasn't an illegal tackle.

Illegal being the operative word, and yes it was.

As for the broken jaw, I don't know the latest injury update.

 

[Lebbo73]

A player has a broken jaw as a result of a clearly illegal tackle. Seems pretty cut and dried to me but the judiciary this season is a bit like a casino.

An accidental head clash is not an illegal tackle!

 

[catweasel]

They're saying 5 weeks for a head clash!!! Everything about this game is becoming a joke sadly.

 

[Snappy]

one week

http://www.nrl.com/blair-carter-face-one-match-bans/tabid/10874/newsid/95224/default.aspx

 

[catweasel]

one week

http://www.nrl.com/blair-carter-face-one-match-bans/tabid/10874/newsid/95224/default.aspx

Cool. Fox were saying up to 5 with loading etc....

 

[chigurh]

I think one week is a bit harsh. But he might need a week off after the head knock anyway I guess

 

[some11]

I think one week is a bit harsh. But he might need a week off after the head knock anyway I guess

Best thing for his welfare, he should head off to Fraser for a well earned rest.

 

[AMD]

I reckon they'll fight it.

 

[McLovin]

lol 1 week... Weak as piss from the judiciary...

 

[catweasel]

lol 1 week... Weak as piss from the judiciary...

Are you f**king blind??

 

[lockyno1]

I reckon they'll fight it.

We won't bother. 1 week is fine.

 

[yobbo84]

Anyone who says it was a head clash needs to head to OPSM.

 

[Hauff]

how a dog shot purposeful trip can only have a base of 75 pts is absurd. It's laughable that an accidental head clash is going to result in the same suspension.

 

[lockyno1]

Elected to fight the charge at the judiciary