How many weeks for Dylan Bumper Farrell?

[attila_the_gorilla]

There should be two legitimate ways of defending this sort of play.

1. Get into position in time and contest for the ball in the air.

2. Wait for the attacking player to get to a manageable position and prevent him from planting the ball down.

If you're not good enough to do one of these two, then a try will be scored and fair enough.

 

[LESStar58]

How many weeks did he get for it?



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.

The rule under section 11 (as you have posted. Thanks for that BTW) is

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.

It's the text in RED that concerns me. So mid-air tackles qualify as player mis-conduct (section 15) yet it's only applicable to defending.

I'm not saying the penalty was unwarranted. Of course it was... but here we all are debating the severity of Farrell's potential punishment while some spectators and commentators are claiming "no intent" or that Farrell won't be punished or that it was an accident.

Basically the red text undee section 11 needs to be abolished.

 

[super_coach]

It was not a tackle,rather acciedental contact.A total over reaction by the officals.A common sense approach was needed but we have to remember it was Hollywood Haynes and Maxwell the talking horse controlling the game.

 

[LESStar58]

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.

I don't think it'll get THAT pedantic, mate but as per my previous post the rule book says only applicable to the non-kicking team...and that's what concerns me.

The contest for the ball (if you can call it that given that Farrell never had his eye on the ball) was in the field of play. Not the in-goal. Even though it looks to only be 3-5 metres out from the goal line, I think if Waqa catches the ball and lands Farrell still has enough momentum to tackle him in to touch at best or touch in goal at worst. Maybe even force a knock on.

All this could have been avoided; Waqa would never have left on a medicab and Farrell's involvement in this finals series would not be under a cloud.

 

[Springs]

The rule under section 11 (as you have posted. Thanks for that BTW) is

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.

It's the text in RED that concerns me. So mid-air tackles qualify as player mis-conduct (section 15) yet it's only applicable to defending.

I'm not saying the penalty was unwarranted. Of course it was... but here we all are debating the severity of Farrell's potential punishment while some spectators and commentators are claiming "no intent" or that Farrell won't be punished or that it was an accident.

Basically the red text undee section 11 needs to be abolished.

No it doesn't. The whole rule needs to be abolished and replaced with one that bans players from taking out the legs of a mid-air player.

Even if it was a rule any player would still do what Farrell did to stop them scoring. Honestly if Farrell just stood back and waited for him to land we'd all be calling him an idiot. You can't just ban things like that because of unfortunate results. That kind of thinking got the shoulder charge banned and look at what a farce that has become (Lima tackle last night a prime example). In fact most penalties for tackling defending players in the air are stupid. It's only the ones that take out their legs or put them in a dangerous position that should be penalised.

 

[Radio LeagueUnlimited]

The was also discussed today on A View From The Hill.

Audio player for today's show is here:
http://www.leagueunlimited.com/radio

 

[Big Tim]

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.

Lets make this easy.

You are allowed to lift in a tackle.
You are not allowed to lift a player into a dangerous position in a tackle.

You are allowed to tackle an attacking player in mid-air.
You are not allowed to place an attacking mid-air player in a dangerous position.

Just because you are allowed to tackle a mid-air attacker doesnt mean you are clear to do it any way you want. The tackler is always responsible for how the tackle ends.... ask Kade Snowden.

 

[Apey]

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

Ah right sorry didn't realise there was a grace period for tackling players without the ball.

 

[Canard]

Ah right sorry didn't realise there was a grace period for tackling players without the ball.

There isn't of course but you are having a lend of yourself if you reckon that sort of timing was picked up live. It ISNT what people are arguing about however in regards to the rules.

I would direct attackers to jump into defenders when kicks are in the air to get penalties if the short sighted nature of rule change that people are wanting changed after one random incident in 105 years

 

[Apey]

I don't think there is a problem with tackling in the air in general. Changing the rule would have players looking like dopes as they try to wait for a player to land before they could tackle them and attempt to prevent a try from being scored. Tackling the legs whilst in the air however is almost always going to end up one way.

 

[the dude]

There isn't of course but you are having a lend of yourself if you reckon that sort of timing was picked up live. It ISNT what people are arguing about however in regards to the rules.

I would direct attackers to jump into defenders when kicks are in the air to get penalties if the short sighted nature of rule change that people are wanting changed after one random incident in 105 years

Mate, the idiots in this thread are the exact reason the shoulder charge and the biff is banned - because one little incident and there has to be mass rule changes. Pathetic really.

It was careless of Farrell but not reckless.

 

[johns_reds]

It's not intentional but if you are going to be careless about it then should cop some kind of penalty (suspension).

I think it is very similar to putitng someone in a dangerous position, they usually copy a couple of weeks

 

[Mr Spock!]

[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.

Anyone calling for a suspension has never played the game.

Waqa got himself into a dangerous position. Which is what happens when you jump 3-4 feet in the air. A defender can't disappear when they're jumping on top of you.

And if it was a penalty then why not a penalty try?

Farcical rule.

 

[Fat Krion]

Mate, the idiots in this thread are the exact reason the shoulder charge and the biff is banned - because one little incident and there has to be mass rule changes. Pathetic really.

It was careless of Farrell but not reckless.

Wow if you concur that it was indeed careless then Farrell will miss a week or two.

 

[Alan Johnson]

So is Waqa okay or what? Have browsed through a few threads but haven't seen anything...

 

[thorson1987]

So is Waqa okay or what? Have browsed through a few threads but haven't seen anything...

Was in a neck brace today to fly back to Melbourne.

Will have a MRI scan.

Looking positive for him though.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Ah, good news. Cheers.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

Anyone calling for a suspension has never played the game.

Waqa got himself into a dangerous position. Which is what happens when you jump 3-4 feet in the air. A defender can't disappear when they're jumping on top of you.

And if it was a penalty then why not a penalty try?

Farcical rule.

Farrell has his eyes on Waqa before the ball is anywhere near & gets real close...what a defender does I suppose. He has his eyes on him when Waqa is still running & then leaping...and yes, Waqa does get high & much like any attacking winger does any day of the week.

Why didn't Farrell contest for the ball? Because his back was to it & he was covering his man. That's probably what a defender does any day of the week too. But it looks like to me that he was only ever going to contest the man & he was careless about how he went about that imo.

 

[Big Sam]

0 weeks. Confirmed.

https://twitter.com/SMHsport/status/379452262516801537

 

[bottle]

0 weeks. Confirmed.

https://twitter.com/SMHsport/status/379452262516801537

Common sense prevails.