How many weeks for Dylan Bumper Farrell?

[Canard]

Can tackle attacking players around the torso area in the air. But can't touch the legs.

.

Are you sure that this is a rule in Rugby League? I very much doubt it?

 

[bellyache]

Big trouble here. 5 weeks. changed his line, no use of arms, tunneled his legs and got Sisa into a dangerous position. season over IMO!

This^^... Asotasi will join him also..

 

[herbert henry1908]

I cant believe some peoples reaction to this.


He clearly braces for impact.


There was no intent. I'd also argue a careless charge would be over the top as this is a very unusual incident. Nothing at all like a typical defensive situation.

 

[BigRedV]

He braces himself to jostle with Waqa for position. It's obvious he was expecting a bumping duel for the ball. He wasn't expecting Waqa to try to hurdle over the top of him. You can see him try to flatten himself out across the back once Waqa leaps above his shoulders.

no of course not. No-one jumps for a high ball. he was 100% expecting a pushing match on the ground for who gets it. Give me a break!

 

[Cloudsurfer]

no of course not. No-one jumps for a high ball. he was 100% expecting a pushing match on the ground for who gets it. Give me a break!

This...he knew what he was doing.

 

[typicalfan]

Careless. Give him a week.

 

[the dude]

Yep, makes a mockery out of the NRL decision to ban the shoulder charge for "player safety" when you can still do stuff like this on the field

You can't do stuff like that. That is why there was a penalty and Farrell was put on report.

 

[Dutchy]

Are you sure that this is a rule in Rugby League? I very much doubt it?

I've played for 20 years. Quite a lot defending In the fullback position. Yeah it's a rule.

 

[Dutchy]

Oh and if it were a legal play there would have been no penalty and report. Simple.

 

[bottle]

Oh and if it were a legal play there would have been no penalty and report. Simple.

The report and penalty are related to contact being made prior to the player being in possession of the ball, not the contact itself.
Not as simple as it appears to be outwardly.

 

[slammingsam]

Clearly braces for impact and protects himself. Some muppet on Triple M tried to say he attacked him in mid air. I'd be surprised if he gets anything, Asotasi too

 

[Apey]

[youtube]kZR6U-38Jzg[/youtube]

After watching it a few more times, I don't think there is much intent there.

Credit to Farrell though for immediately showing concern for Sisa.

Definitely contacted him before he had the ball.

10 weeks, 6 week reduction because he plays for Souffs.

 

[nomis88]

It was Sister Wanka's decision to take a ridiculous leap. Farrell did nothing.

 

[Springs]

I've played for 20 years. Quite a lot defending In the fullback position. Yeah it's a rule.

This is the rule:

Mid-airtackle 1. (b) It is illegal to tackle an opposing player attempting to
field a kick whilst the player is in mid-air. The catcher
must have returned to the ground before being tackled.
(See Section 15.).Applies only when a player on the
non-kicking team catches the ball on the full.

http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL Rules book 2013FINAL.pdf

In international rules it's illegal to tackle an attacking player in the air in any way. What you said is not a rule.

 

[LESStar58]

The rule needs to be reviewed IMO. I find it laughable that defending players are (fairly) protected defusing bombs yet attacking players are not. You can't outlaw the shoulder charge out of fear of head injuries, look at outlawing the "third man in" tackle for fear of knee, leg etc injuries but not review the rule of attacking players in the air when what happened to Waqa last night could easily lead to life in a wheel chair.... or worse.

Yes, I'm looking at this through purple glasses but I'd say the same thing if it happened to another player not in my team.

I referee juniors and they are so easily influenced by what they see players do on tele. Even with the shoulder charge outlawed across all grades, it's been a no-no in mini and mods since Adam was a boy...but the players STILL do it. If attacking aerial players is not reviewed it will continue to be a tactic and it will have potentially have HUGE ramifications for our code.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I understand the duty of care on the defender, but at the same time attacking players can't just run around the field doing high jump and expect defenders to leave them alone. It puts the defender in a hell of a position when the bloke he is supposed to stop from scoring is flying past him with his legs at the height of the defender's head. I think you just have to mark it down as "shit happens". Hope Waqa is ok.

 

[Springs]

Yes it was , the refs said he put gordon in a dangerous position awarded gordan a penalty.

How many weeks did he get for it?

The rule needs to be reviewed IMO. I find it laughable that defending players are (fairly) protected defusing bombs yet attacking players are not. You can't outlaw the shoulder charge out of fear of head injuries, look at outlawing the "third man in" tackle for fear of knee, leg etc injuries but not review the rule of attacking players in the air when what happened to Waqa last night could easily lead to life in a wheel chair.... or worse.

Why? Last night it was a penalty. It's still illegal to put a player in a dangerous position.

If the rule was to be reviewed it should be changed to taking out the legs of any mid-air player is a penalty, while the rest isn't. Some of the 'tackles' on defending mid-air players are disgraceful. Most of them are just bumps after two players contested the ball.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

The rule needs to be reviewed IMO. I find it laughable that defending players are (fairly) protected defusing bombs yet attacking players are not.

What would be laughable is a rule that effectively says "if an attacking player jumps to catch the ball over the line you have to stand back and let him score". The rule really can't be any other way than what it is.

 

[Canard]

Oh and if it were a legal play there would have been no penalty and report. Simple.

Yes that logic is sound.

It's not a rule mate, plain and simple.

 

[Canard]

Definitely contacted him before he had the ball.

10 weeks, 6 week reduction because he plays for Souffs.

In super slow mo he touched him milli seconds before he caught it.