Lassie thread - Dog acts of 08

[Shorty]

I think he had every right to,it does certainly look like that.
I don't think Fitler would have instructed it,I think Mr Anasta probably had a lightbulb moment.

 

[chunk]

I think he just wanted to inflick some pain, saw an opportunity and took it...thats part of the game.

If he new he would dislocate his shoulder...maybe he wouldn't of done it.

Wing just got unlucky

 

[Mr Saab]

Don't know if it's been posted in the thread yet;

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23378774-23214,00.html

An extract:
Souths coach Jason Taylor branded Brown's challenge a "cheap shot" and went further, claiming Roosters opposite Brad Fittler had instructed his players "to hold a player up so that someone could smash him".

"They deliberately held him back so that the other player could come in and hit him in the back," Taylor said.

"If you watch the replay, you can actually see their eyes light up and say, 'I've got him held up, you come in and get him'."

A red-eyed Wing didn't try to hide his disappointment. "To say I'm gutted is an understatement," he said.

"I'm sure they wanted to put a bit extra in every tackle I was in. They look like they were instructed to play that way.

"That (type of tackle) has been happening since I went there in 2002. They did it when I was there, but I don't know if they trained for it during the off season.

"Straight away I realised the implications. It's pretty much thrown my whole off- season out the window."


Harden then f**k up boys, it's only Round 1 you've got a long season to get through and are you going to cry like this with every injury?

Yeah I heard that. Pathetic statement. I am expecting souths to bring in some body language expert....like they did for the David Faalogo "he could have died" grapple tackle.

 

[Mal Meninga]

It was cheap but within the laws of the game.

 

[SSFC Hitman]

Nothing wrong with it. It was unfortunate but only intended to rattle the Bunnies best player. Shall we protect playmakers from all hits? I think not. A very unfortunate hit, sure, and maybe Brown should consider his actions more thoroughly in future given that a player involved in a tackle is always a chance to wind up in a nasty position if you tear in at him like that...but overall I have no real issues with it.

My problem was that it was an intentional late hit...very much like when someone targets a kicker late when they are clearly unprotected. And I disagree I seriously think it was intended to put him out of the game...there was no half assed way about it.

 

[beave]

agreed, legal, but very very cheap.

 

[chunk]

Don't know if it's been posted in the thread yet;

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23378774-23214,00.html

An extract:
Souths coach Jason Taylor branded Brown's challenge a "cheap shot" and went further, claiming Roosters opposite Brad Fittler had instructed his players "to hold a player up so that someone could smash him".

"They deliberately held him back so that the other player could come in and hit him in the back," Taylor said.

"If you watch the replay, you can actually see their eyes light up and say, 'I've got him held up, you come in and get him'."

A red-eyed Wing didn't try to hide his disappointment. "To say I'm gutted is an understatement," he said.

"I'm sure they wanted to put a bit extra in every tackle I was in. They look like they were instructed to play that way.

"That (type of tackle) has been happening since I went there in 2002. They did it when I was there, but I don't know if they trained for it during the off season.

"Straight away I realised the implications. It's pretty much thrown my whole off- season out the window."


Harden then f**k up boys, it's only Round 1 you've got a long season to get through and are you going to cry like this with every injury?

Thats quite an accusation, lets hope its not true.

That is well and truly not needed in the game.

 

[Darth Bobo]

My problem was that it was an intentional late hit...very much like when someone targets a kicker late when they are clearly unprotected. And I disagree I seriously think it was intended to put him out of the game...there was no half assed way about it.

If it was that late then why was there no talk of a penalty? Asotasi showed the way to handle it by hitting Brown in the game, on the field and away from the microphones and Kleenex.

 

[Pierced Soul]

he's a dog and will win the dog act of the year, unless webb finds some way to top him.

what surprises me is the souths players didnt fire up. i thought they'd try and smash brown, but seeing brow'ns stats when he got smashed, he had gone for ONE run and that was the run he was injured.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Lol I love some of the replies, I read them and then scroll down to find a Roosters signature. How would you like it if it had been Pearce that had been injured? You'd be making more noise about it than any of these people are now.

"Tackle"? How is that a tackle exactly? Slamming someone in the back when they're in an extremely vulnerable position is now considered a tackle? Asotasi's hit on him was a tackle. Instant karma, but unfortunately not strong enough. There is nothing tough about kicking someone while they're down.

]

It was a legal tackle.. end of story.. Of course it was intended to hurt their star playmaker.. I doubt it was premeditated but as if there wasn't some intention to hit him hard and legally if the opportunity arose.. It has been happening for 100 years.. Get over it.. Some teams use illegal tactics like the Storm, we don't..

 

[madunit]

Just saw it,obviously the tackle was legal but it was meant for injury.
Which is f**king disgusting.

It's not disgusting. If it's legal, then go for it.

And Braith Anasta is a f**king sad excuse of a human being to be clapping with glee about a former teammate now disabled and season ruined.

Good on him for supporting his team mate. Even better is that it was to a Souths player who was paid overs to poach from a team who'd seen the best of him.

Are they that pathetic,that they enjoy seeing someone physically injured? All because the bloke changed clubs.

I enjoyed it, not because he changed clubs, but because he was wearing red and green. These guys do all sorts of excersises and training and are built for the knocks and bumps that come with playing a full body contact sport like Rugby League. Wasn't it good watching Wing almost in tears...bahahaha what a softcock!

I'm glad that's not my club,cause I'd be ashamed.

So you'd also campaign heavily to have the bouncer removed from cricket? It's far more Dangerous than that hit last night.

 

[simostorm]

yep dog act...Wing was tackled.

 

[Apey]

]

It was a legal tackle.. end of story.. Of course it was intended to hurt their star playmaker.. I doubt it was premeditated but as if there wasn't some intention to hit him hard and legally if the opportunity arose.. It has been happening for 100 years.. Get over it.. Some teams use illegal tactics like the Storm, we don't..

I know it's legal, but it's a dog shot. I assume you only have the opinion that's it not because it is biased towards your team. Again I'm not denying it's legal, I agree with that. Personally for me it was just a low unnecessary act.

 

[madunit]

it was neccessary

 

[Hutchy86]

So you'd also campaign heavily to have the bouncer removed from cricket? It's far more Dangerous than that hit last night.

Difference is that a batsman has every opportunity to avoid the bouncer... this hit was unavoidable as Wing was:
1) hit from behind
&
2) being held by 2 Roosters players

poor comparison imo

 

[Shorty]

It's not disgusting. If it's legal, then go for it.

I don't believe it was done to tackle Wing though,the tackle was at least reckless and silly.

Good on him for supporting his team mate. Even better is that it was to a Souths player who was paid overs to poach from a team who'd seen the best of him.
I enjoyed it, not because he changed clubs, but because he was wearing red and green. These guys do all sorts of excersises and training and are built for the knocks and bumps that come with playing a full body contact sport like Rugby League. Wasn't it good watching Wing almost in tears...bahahaha what a softcock!

It wasn't support,it was as if they had done the job - Injuring Wing.

Fair enough,and that's your opinion of Souths and Wing but I just don't agree with what happened.
Obviously they wanted to rough up Wing,but I think it went too far illegal or legal.
There is always grey.

So you'd also campaign heavily to have the bouncer removed from cricket? It's far more Dangerous than that hit last night.

Don't watch Cricket.

 

[BPS]

It was a dog act but don't point the finger at Riley Brown alone. Canasten and Tupou were both holding Wing up and Tupou motioned Brown with his eyes to come in.

The other camera angle hows it perfectly, and you can see Tupou remove his forearm just in time as Brown comes in. Canasten started applauding before he took one step to get back the ten.

It WAS a dog act and a very bad look for League which was made so much worse by Goulds only words being "It's within the rules, it's totally legal"

So many Mums and dads won't let their children play a game when maiming a player on purpose is tolerated and endorsed by the Coach, the commentators (except for ray Warren who has called it UN-Australian) and the governing body.
If League really wants to take on a National status this type of play HAS to be removed from the game, whether it's "legal" or not!

There is NO doubt it was intentional. There is no doubt that it was a disgrace and if Wing or any other player ends up in a wheel chair because of a tackle like this everyone will be ready to hang the guy who did it.

Stop flying the club colours for a minute and think of the welfare of the game and it's players. We HAVE to make the game appear tough but clean, tough but fair, and tackles like that one on Wing does more damage to the game nationally at the grass roots level than 10 million dollars of AFL advertising!

 

[_Johnsy]

I cannot believe JT would be so stupid to suggest it was coached, FMD.

 

[madunit]

Difference is that a batsman has every opportunity to avoid the bouncer... this hit was unavoidable as Wing was:
1) hit from behind
&
2) being held by 2 Roosters players

poor comparison imo

Not poor at all. A cricket ball is a lot harder than a humans arm, especially when said ball travels at over 130kmph whereas the human travels at somewhere around 10% of the ball.

Then there's the reaction time to consider for the batsmen, which is generally less than a second.

It's a very valid comparison imo

 

[madunit]

I don't believe it was done to tackle Wing though,the tackle was at least reckless and silly.

It was legal and intentional. I don't know how reckless can be considered as an adjective to describe the tackle.

It wasn't support,it was as if they had done the job - Injuring Wing.

Same thing really.

Fair enough,and that's your opinion of Souths and Wing but I just don't agree with what happened.

I'll be honest with you. I don't care who it happened to, my opinion would be the same, there's nothing wrong with it.

Obviously they wanted to rough up Wing,but I think it went too far illegal or legal.
There is always grey.

I don't think so at all. He plays a sport like rugby league, he should expect to get hit hard in tackles every now and then.

Don't watch Cricket.

What's wrong with you?