How many weeks for Latrell?

[Perth Red]

Exactly... so why would a player's performance bother them?

it wouldn't, but if you're going to ask a coach or a player what he thought of the refs performance, only fair the ref gets to say what he though of theirs. Or we could stop being silly and accept that slagging off refs isn't a good thing for the game, even when they get it wrong.

 

[Perth Red]

He definitely played on the edge with us as well but didn't seem to cross the line. If you listen to those in the know, Latrell is high maintenance and the club had to very delicately manage him including given him time off to see his family, managing his emotions and directing his anger etc.

I have no idea what souths are doing but it appears they are letting him go unchecked.

I wonder if its the chemicals in the fast food he troughs? Or it could be he's just a bit immature and stupid? Either way its a waste of talent, but not the first or the last.

 

[PANTHERMIKE]

I dont know what to make of Gus, does he do it to get a reaction or does he really believes what he says?

He does it to get the heat of one of his players stealing and selling bluetooth speakers on Ebay and another one f**king someone in a toilet... Which we all forgot about really.

 

[Generalzod]

 

[This Year?]

You are completely twisting what he said. He did not say Manu did anything wrong. He was simply making the accurate point that it was clearly not a premeditated hit by Latrell since if he didn't go for the pass the angle wouldn't have been the way it was and there wouldn't have been that sickening clash.


And you too. Gould was not saying Latrell shouldn't have been suspended at all. He was saying that a grade 2 reckless was absurd, this was a careless tackle. Not a reckless tackle. And that he was punished because of the injury, not because of the act. This is all true. If Manu gets up uninjured Latrell gets 2 weeks instead of 6. That is not justice.

I don't think Latrell went into the tackle with the intention of smashing his cheekbone. He did however went in with the intention of putting a big shot on to lift his team IMO, but it went very wrong. For Gus to sit there with all his conviction and use the Cam Smith defence is insulting to Manu. The duty of care is all on the tackler.
Nobody in the media came to Fuimaono's defence when he knocked out Papenhuysen and rightfully so.
Why is Latrell given that?
If he didn't come flying in like a McMissile then Manu wouldn't have got injured as badly regardless of the angle. Time for the media to just report the facts and not speculate like both Gus and the flogs at Fox have.

 

[Maximus]

Reckless should mean deliberately dangerous in a way that does not belong in footy. A typical attempt at a hard upper body tackle is not reckless. And again, if there was no injury it never gets a reckless charge. A reckless charge should be based solely on the tackler's actions, this was not.

'heedless of danger or the consequences of one's actions'

No mention of deliberate there

 

[Valheru]

it wouldn't, but if you're going to ask a coach or a player what he thought of the refs performance, only fair the ref gets to say what he though of theirs. Or we could stop being silly and accept that slagging off refs isn't a good thing for the game, even when they get it wrong.

The refs can say what they want about a player's performance unless there is some rule I don't know about?

I agree it can't be open slather but they shouldn't be immune to criticism either. Robbo's fine is well deserved but I find it ironic that he would get fined for refusing to turn up and give his thoughts. Perhaps they should be able to opt out twice a season or something?

 

[morley101]

Gus is correct Latrell couldn't change his tackle as he was coming in too quickly. Like car speeding and can't stop in time to hit a car has stopped in front. Like the driver he was reckless coming at speed, so instead of trying to smash Manu he could've slowed made traditional tackle.

 

[Perth Red]

The refs can say what they want about a player's performance unless there is some rule I don't know about?

I agree it can't be open slather but they shouldn't be immune to criticism either. Robbo's fine is well deserved but I find it ironic that he would get fined for refusing to turn up and give his thoughts. Perhaps they should be able to opt out twice a season or something?

Come on you know as well as I do what he said was well over the line of what is acceptable. He could have just said I am very disaapointed he wasnt sent off and I think we need more consistency and for the refs to get together to decide whats a send off and whats a sin bin. But he didnt, and for why? Why take a significant fine that he knew would be coming? I noticed no critiscm of ceo or chairman or questioning Vlandys strong head high tackle statements just a couple of months ago? Why? Because you and I know he is trying to get in the refs heads and if anything similar happens in the finals get someone marched giving his team the best chance of winning. Thats his motivation for his very calculated outburst, hes no Toovey or Stuart losing his temper and blurting out in anger.

 

[BunniesMan]

I don't think Latrell went into the tackle with the intention of smashing his cheekbone. He did however went in with the intention of putting a big shot on to lift his team IMO, but it went very wrong. For Gus to sit there with all his conviction and use the Cam Smith defence is insulting to Manu. The duty of care is all on the tackler.

Yes he went in with the intent of putting on a big shot, not a dirty shot, it did go wrong, and that is why a careless charge and 2 weeks would have been fair. A suspension like 6 weeks should only be thug acts which this was not.

He was not insulting Manu. He did not say Manu did anything wrong. Simply and accurately explaining the chain of events included a late movement by Manu does not mean you're saying he is to blame. That is also why he was not arguing for Latrell to have gotten off. Nobody, not even me, is arguing for no suspension. Gus and I are just arguing that bad luck should not affect grading. 2 weeks for taking a risk and it going wrong.

If your argument is nobody should ever go for a big upper body hit you are ruining rugby league. This is part of the game. It was a natural rugby league play. It wasn't some leaping head hunter at an upright player where the intent to smash the head is clear. It was a tough player trying to make a tough but legal play.

 

[Perth Red]

Gus is correct Latrell couldn't change his tackle as he was coming in too quickly. Like car speeding and can't stop in time to hit a car has stopped in front. Like the driver he was reckless coming at speed, so instead of trying to smash Manu he could've slowed made traditional tackle.

he made no attempt to tackle, just ran full pelt and cocked his shoulder. Thats why its reckless, not careless. You could argue it was deliberate in regards to a shoulder charge and careless in terms of point of impact. 6 weeks is light considering just a few weeks ago we were being told by the chairman that these sort of tackles would literally kill the game off!

 

[ColdWetPanther]

The refs can say what they want about a player's performance unless there is some rule I don't know about?

I agree it can't be open slather but they shouldn't be immune to criticism either. Robbo's fine is well deserved but I find it ironic that he would get fined for refusing to turn up and give his thoughts. Perhaps they should be able to opt out twice a season or something?

They need to Beast Mode; ‘I’m just here so I don’t get fined’…

 

[Generalzod]

Yes he went in with the intent of putting on a big shot, not a dirty shot, it did go wrong, and that is why a careless charge and 2 weeks would have been fair. A suspension like 6 weeks should only be thug acts which this was not.

He was not insulting Manu. He did not say Manu did anything wrong. Simply and accurately explaining the chain of events included a late movement by Manu does not mean you're saying he is to blame. That is also why he was not arguing for Latrell to have gotten off. Nobody, not even me, is arguing for no suspension. Gus and I are just arguing that bad luck should not affect grading. 2 weeks for taking a risk and it going wrong.

If your argument is nobody should ever go for a big upper body hit you are ruining rugby league. This is part of the game. It was a natural rugby league play. It wasn't some leaping head hunter at an upright player where the intent to smash the head is clear. It was a tough player trying to make a tough but legal play.

How do you know what he was thinking what his intent was, all I saw was runaway train going 100kms h/r with a lift elbow, what do you think was going to happen...

 

[haha]

lol, people are eating up the media’s sensationalism and carrying on like he stabbed Manu.
Was a big hit gone wrong and he’s been punished.

The way Robbo and Co. have carried on is an embarrassment and shows his double standards.

 

[ACTPanthers]

Bunnies fans... Never change you toothless merkins

 

[Generalzod]

lol, people are eating up the media’s sensationalism and carrying on like he stabbed Manu.
Was a big hit gone wrong and he’s been punished.

The way Robbo and Co. have carried on is an embarrassment and shows his double standards.

Basically what he did with out a knife...

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Just a thought here but the way a try can be reviewed after it’s been awarded and eventually confirmed or taken away, I wonder if we can do the same with a sin bin. Not reverse the decision of course but we can relieve a bit of pressure on the ref by letting him take the easier option of sin bin for foul play. While the player serves his time, the bunker can review more angles without the pressure of time. Then they can make a decision as to whether or not to elevate it to a send off?

 

[yobbo84]

Just a thought here but the way a try can be reviewed after it’s been awarded and eventually confirmed or taken away, I wonder if we can do the same with a sin bin. Not reverse the decision of course but we can relieve a bit of pressure on the ref by letting him take the easier option of sin bin for foul play. While the player serves his time, the bunker can review more angles without the pressure of time. Then they can make a decision as to whether or not to elevate it to a send off?

A send off could be that the team plays with 12 men for 10 minutes, after which they can bring on a replacement for the sent-off player and play with 13 again. But the sent-off player cannot return.

Any direct forceful contact with the head becomes an automatic send off.

 

[haha]

Seriously though, a chick played the netball GF on weekend with a broken rib, Sammy Burgess the whole GF with broken cheek bone, Ben Hunt played with a broken leg, Cronk the whole GF with one arm.
Manu comes off crying and the whole roosters organisation breaks out into tears.
Roosters need to harden up as an organisation, the Storm mental toughness that Cronk instilled is gone.

 

[Cactus]

A send off could be that the team plays with 12 men for 10 minutes, after which they can bring on a replacement for the sent-off player and play with 13 again. But the sent-off player cannot return.

LOL. So a sin bin then.