Napa sin bin

[M2D2]

No matter how many times people say it was, that was not an accidental head clash. That was caused by Napa’s reckless tackling style. And accidental head clash would come about when two players collide with their heads despite the best efforts of both to avoid head on head contact.

Napa was making no effort to avoid head contact.

It is an accidental head clash no matter how many times you say otherwise. Because if its not an accident, there is intent, as there was no intent because nobody makes a deliberate attempt to hit someone with their own head despite idiots saying "what is a headbutt", even with a car accident, with someone clearly at fault. Its still an accident.
Idiots.

 

[Danish]

There is an issue in that he should have seen the warning signs of him breaking Sims' jaw earlier in the year with an identical technique. The fact that Napa indicated then he would not change his tackling technique is almost admission of intent to injure, but the blame lies squarely on the MRP for not charging him for the original incident.

Get ready to clutch your pearls when I tell you that many players - and any prop worth feeding - intend to injure their opponents.

 

[Canard]

Pretty sure it’s games and people change that to equate weeks.
If you get a ban in the tail end of a season it carries over to the next season. I remember George Burgess throwing a water bottle in someone’s general direction and missing the opening week/weeks of the next season.

Except the pre-season trials count towards the suspension. (Stupidly so in my opinion).

In my opinion, it was a reckless tackle that accidentally injured his opponent. 2 weeks with no priors, 3 weeks with the carry over.

 

[carcharias]

He meant it
Just like he did the first time
Only difference is the numbskis running this circus inexplicably let him off then.

 

[Front-Rower]

He meant it
Just like he did the first time
Only difference is the numbskis running this circus inexplicably let him off then.

I just watched the replay and he stops, puts his arms out like a plane, his head goes down and he launches up at McCallough like a torpedo striking him with the top of the forehead.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Napa has taken the early guilty plea - https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/08/26...ndrew-mccullough-tackle-facing-3-4-match-ban/

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Get ready to clutch your pearls when I tell you that many players - and any prop worth feeding - intend to injure their opponents.

No doubt. Just feeds into the shrieking howls from Roosters fans that any mention of Napa's technique being deliberate is outrageous.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

It is an accidental head clash no matter how many times you say otherwise. Because if its not an accident, there is intent, as there was no intent because nobody makes a deliberate attempt to hit someone with their own head despite idiots saying "what is a headbutt", even with a car accident, with someone clearly at fault. Its still an accident.
Idiots.

Conflating Napa's head charging tackling style with a simple clash of heads is where you let yourself down.

There is a world of difference.

 

[Danish]

No doubt. Just feeds into the shrieking howls from Roosters fans that any mention of Napa's technique being deliberate is outrageous.

He is deliberately trying to hurt people. He wasn't deliberately trying to headbutt someone.

Hell even you don't think he deliberately headbutted him given your eplanation of the tackle

 

[M2D2]

No doubt. Just feeds into the shrieking howls from Roosters fans that any mention of Napa's technique being deliberate is outrageous.

Its not just roosters fans.
Its stupid to alot of other fans as well.

Conflating Napa's head charging tackling style with a simple clash of heads is where you let yourself down.

There is a world of difference.

Nothing simple about it.
Except it is an accidental head clash and hes not deliberately trying to headbutt some one.

 

[Woody49]

Guilty as charged.

 

[hrundi99]

even with a car accident, with someone clearly at fault. Its still an accident.
Idiots.

There's very little that happens in life that is an accident. The majority of car "accidents" are caused by people doing the wrong thing. Why do people get charged with neg driving?

Napa's style increases the likelihood he will contact the head and whether there is intention or not, it's punishable.

 

[Mack 10]

For the record he also collected Paasi the second time the Roosters and Warriors played this year with a similar tackle.

Split him open above his eye but he didn't end up with a broken jaw or conlvusing on the turf so no one took much notice of it.

So that's actually the third time this season it's happened.

Napa needs to change his technique as the risk of serious injury is too great when he gets it wrong.

The NRL also needs to take a harder line on this as they've let this slide for too long before getting out their wet bus ticket which has seen players get seriously injured due to their inaction.
They're failing in their duty of care which potentially has all sorts of implications.

 

[no name]

He has terrible technique, he puts his head on the wrong side.
If a smaller bloke had his technique, they'd be retired from too many concussions.

 

[M2D2]

There's very little that happens in life that is an accident. The majority of car "accidents" are caused by people doing the wrong thing. Why do people get charged with neg driving?

Napa's style increases the likelihood he will contact the head and whether there is intention or not, it's punishable.

Wrong.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

He is deliberately trying to hurt people. He wasn't deliberately trying to headbutt someone.

Hell even you don't think he deliberately headbutted him given your eplanation of the tackle

The difference being he clearly didn't care if he ended up smashing his head into someone else's.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Its not just roosters fans.
Its stupid to alot of other fans as well.

Nothing simple about it.
Except it is an accidental head clash and hes not deliberately trying to headbutt some one.

Refer to my post above. He wasn't concerned if he inadvertently did headbutt someone. That's the difference between head clashes in NRL terms and Napa's actions. But keep trying to conflate the two for whatever strange reason.

 

[M2D2]

Refer to my post above. He wasn't concerned if he inadvertently did headbutt someone. That's the difference between head clashes in NRL terms and Napa's actions. But keep trying to conflate the two for whatever strange reason.

Keep saying he didnt care about smashing his head into someone elses head

The difference being he clearly didn't care if he ended up smashing his head into someone else's.

even though that doesnt matter in the slightest even though you keep on saying its deliberate because he didnt care even though you have no way of knowing this, especially when its pretty clear you have never played one minute of rugby league.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Keep saying he didnt care about smashing his head into someone elses head

even though that doesnt matter in the slightest even though you keep on saying its deliberate because he didnt care even though you have no way of knowing this, especially when its pretty clear you have never played one minute of rugby league.

Where in this thread (or anywhere) have I said it was deliberate? I suggest you take a deep breath, look yourself in the mirror and reaffirm yourself of your manhood, then actually READ what's being written, rather than spouting throwback "you've never played the game so you wouldn't know" bullshit assumptions that make you look just plain foolish.

Of course it matters when you talk about the scope of an incident. Is there any difference between a driver being careful, making a mistake and killing someone on the sidewalk, and a driver that drives recklessly and ends up killing someone on the sidewalk?

I'll give you a hint - there is.

 

[M2D2]

Where in this thread (or anywhere) have I said it was deliberate? I suggest you take a deep breath, look yourself in the mirror and reaffirm yourself of your manhood, then actually READ what's being written, rather than spouting throwback "you've never played the game so you wouldn't know" bullshit assumptions that make you look just plain foolish.

Of course it matters when you talk about the scope of an incident. Is there any difference between a driver being careful, making a mistake and killing someone on the sidewalk, and a driver that drives recklessly and ends up killing someone on the sidewalk?

I'll give you a hint - there is.

He didn't lead with his cheek. He clearly turned his head so that the back of his head would make first contact. Both times. That's not a head clash, it's reckless and dangerous contact.

Now f**k off.