HIA - Storm find another way to rort the system

[Someguy]

It's because he knows Melbourne are untouchable, or at the very least he is assuming as such, and why wouldn't he?

more likely he knows the rules and knows he has nothing to answer for.

Good to see the storm being the ones to take advantage of the new rules first. They were behind the 8 ball when the HIA was first introduced with Parra being the team to create the 18th minute HIA. Likely now that it was the storm exploiting the new rule that it will be fixed.

 

[Saxon]

Well Ponisi admitted there was absolutely nothing wrong with Munster and as a result their secondary doctor sent him straight back on.

So technically, based on the link you provided, he wasn't injured as a result of foul play.

He doesn't need to be. The rule allows for a free interchange of a player who has been fouled and the foul put on report. Doesn't actually require that he be injured.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

It's because he knows Melbourne are untouchable, or at the very least he is assuming as such, and why wouldn't he?

Questions were rightfully raised on Storm’s HIA management. With Canterbury getting fined 20k over their HIA bungle and Munster coming back on after only 30seconds weighing on his mind, in a panic, Ponisi suddenly spills the beans. Reckon it’s more, they painted themselves in a corner and had to fess up re acting.

 

[blaza88z]

My issue isn't with the free interchange, it's with the fact the Melbourne essentially interchanged 2 forwards and it didn't count towards an official interchange (none of which were involved in the tackle)

 

[gerg]

If Melbourne and their fans have their way the nrl rulebook would be 6,000 pages long just so there is something in writing telling them they can't do stupid shit.

Bellamy's brainstorming in the off-season... hmmm I can't see anything in the rulebook about my players having a thousand 3 inch spikes protruding from our jerseys, so let's do it.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

hey look, the Sydney clubs salty over Melbourne's success thread again.

Hey look, the usual horse shit post about tall poppys and rival clubs to attempt to excuse the behaviour of a club that has consistently shat on decency and the rules of the game for decades.

 

[Canard]

The Roosters continue their protected species status.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

The Roosters continue their protected species status.

You still on this crusade? Radley never should’ve been binned. Even Melbourne thought as much.

 

[Bandwagon]

red cards for intent , yellow cards for reckless and careless, which it was.

Munster wasn’t taken off for concussion, he was taken off as the new rule says he has to go to sideline if the play gets stopped due to a player unable to play the ball and game has to be stopped.

The rule is he has to go for two minutes of elapsed game time, he was off for what, 30 - 40 seconds( game time)?

 

[Valheru]

The Roosters continue their protected species status.

lol

Fair to say this thread hasn't been your finest moment on LU. I hope if nothing else you have received an education on the rules.

 

[typicalfan]

My issue isn't with the free interchange, it's with the fact the Melbourne essentially interchanged 2 forwards and it didn't count towards an official interchange (none of which were involved in the tackle)

A by product of the loophole. This isn't the first time it has happened. It really doesn't take much thought to see. I guess it comes back to if Munster wasn't fouled it wouldn't have happened.

 

[Saxon]

The rule is he has to go for two minutes of elapsed game time, he was off for what, 30 - 40 seconds( game time)?

He wasn't taken off under the rule you're thinking of - where if a trainer request the ref stops to treat a player, that player must leave the field for 2 minutes.
He left the field under the rule that if a player is reported for foul play, the player fouled may take a free interchange.

 

[Saxon]

My issue isn't with the free interchange, it's with the fact the Melbourne essentially interchanged 2 forwards and it didn't count towards an official interchange (none of which were involved in the tackle)

Just means that Melbourne officials understand the rules. More than you do apparently.

 

[Bandwagon]

He wasn't taken off under the rule you're thinking of - where if a trainer request the ref stops to treat a player, that player must leave the field for 2 minutes.
He left the field under the rule that if a player is reported for foul play, the player fouled may take a free interchange.

I responded to Perth Red's post, which was saying he was taken off under that rule.

TBH honest I'm not quite sure which rule/s they were abusing, but your explanation seems as plausible as any other.

.

 

[blaza88z]

Just means that Melbourne officials understand the rules. More than you do apparently.

Only a Melbourne fan would try to justify a clear exploitation of the intended rule

 

[Frailty]

Melbourne does it: They are the worst. Always finding loopholes.
Cowboys do it: Radio silence.

 

[moffla]

So this happened 3 times over the weekend (Titans and Cowboys being the others) but sure, Storms fault I guess

 

[Tenacious Titans]

Teddy does it and no outrage?

 

[Hutty1986]

Storm cheating???
I don't believe it!!!

 

[mozza91]

A loophole in the rules that benefits the Storm and Roosters?

How shocking.