R25 - Gameday Warriors v Manly

[GoSouths]

It will be hard to tackle anyone in the air safely. Unless both players are standing near still and there is no momentum or rotational forces in involved.

exactly. CNK was flying towards the ball hoping to get off a piece of it. It was instinct to put a hand out when Garrick jumped. Unless hes going to defy the laws of physics, theres no way hes stopping on a dime then making sure Garrick lands safely. Go and watch the incident at full speed (not slo mo) and you will see what im getting at.

 

[Philip_Smith007]

exactly. CNK was flying towards the ball hoping to get off a piece of it. It was instinct to put a hand out when Garrick jumped. Unless hes going to defy the laws of physics, theres no way hes stopping on a dime then making sure Garrick lands safely. Go and watch the incident at full speed (not slo mo) and you will see what im getting at.

Basically the argument is that CNK should not have hung an arm out much like a lazy arm highshot/coat hanger.
I don't believe CNK had time to think it was a bouncing ball Garrick is fair game, it was a instinct reaction that is currently within the rules. If Garrick goes past the horizontal the dangerous position rule comes into effect. He landed hard but safe (luckly). We can't blame him form jumping for a ball he could have caught on the ground (above his head).
Just like lifting ina tackle is considered safe till you go past horizontal.
It just looked spectacular and was contextual in the moment of the game.

 

[ozenzud]

Personally, I think that Manly should have got the CNK incident penalty and its one of the few occasions ever, where we can claim the lucky call. There were 50/50 calls which went each way. The ruck control by the ref favoured Manly big time.

I think we have a bit of work to do to be able to beat the other top teams.

Great season from where I thought we'd be. We are winning, but we are just scraping past these also ran teams. Don't get me wrong, we are winning. But I am not thinking we are bearing Brisbane or Penriff any time soon.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Just further on the CNK/Garrick situation (normal posting not drunk gameday troll posting - sorry once again) - the reason the rule is like it is, and it makes sense, is because defenders need certainty on when they are allowed to make a tackle. Hence we have a very clear rule that when a player is receiving a kick on the full, you have to allow for the fact that he might jump.

In a situation with e.g. a bouncing ball off a charge down, the defender is entitled to think that the attacking player is going to behave "normally". The same goes for any normal hit up - if an attacking player leaps into the air before the defensive line, he would probably be penalised (there was a famous example a few years ago of Vunivalu doing this on a kick return). There are two reasons for this - the obvious one is that it's dangerous, but the second reason is that it's unfair play because it puts the defender out of play and gives the attacking player an unfair advantage.

With the CNK/Garrick example, CNK is sprinting to make a tackle and then Garrick jumps. If he isn't allowed to make a tackle at this point then CNK would've run past him with his momentum and Garrick gets an unfair advantage. The logical alternative would be that Garrick should be penalised.

As others have mentioned, imagine DWZ does one of his leaps for the corner and a defender hits him at the right angle so that he flips over and comes down on his head. I'd hate to see it happen but if the defender is just attempting a normal tackle then I think it would be ridiculous to penalise that. I am not criticising DWZ for leaping for the corner, but you have to acknowledge that he's the one putting himself in danger.

 

[Benek]

Totally agree. As the rules stand now there's no way they could have penalised CNK in that situation. It was a weird one because it looked dangerous, but if players go jumping up in the air when it's not catching a kick on the full then they are the ones putting themselves in a dangerous position. It would get absurd if any time a player jumped they weren't allowed to be touched.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

FWIW I actually think CNK could've done a better job of bringing Garrick down safely. On reflection, it probably wouldn't have been the end of the world if the referee had exercised his discretion to say that CNK's execution of the tackle was "dangerous" in this particular case.

Would be getting into a very grey area though, about the onus on the tackler to "save" the attacking player who is throwing himself off a cliff.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

as far as I’m concerned it’s like with head-high tackles, the onus is on the defender not to put the tackled player in a dangerous position. Had Garrick flipped over and come down on his head CNK would’ve been penalised, just like players are sometimes penalised when they go in for a big hit and the defender slips in the tackle and wears one head high. But as it was he landed heavily but did NOT land in a dangerous position, so it’s a non-issue. League is a tough game, sometimes you get the stuffing knocked out of you. I don’t see a reason to change the rules nowadays unless we start getting a lot of players landing in dangerous positions from similar incidents, and that’s not happening yet.

 

[Meth]

The whinging coming out of Manly is laughable, especially considering the try they got away with. If you want to play ‘that call cost us the game’, you have to take into account that the only reason you were in the position you were in was that you were the beneficiary of bunker incompetence.

I’m fine if they want to change the rule to protect the player in the future. To be honest, I’d be ok if they decided to show some discretion and penalize CNK for not showing a duty of care. But given that there’s technically no foul in CNK’s actions, you can’t cry ‘travesty of justice’.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

Confirmed fractured back for Garrick

 

[GoSouths]

6 weeks to heal but he wants to play this weekend...

Sea Eagles reveal shocking extent of Reuben Garrick injury after ugly tackle

Sea Eagles reveal shocking extent of star’s injury after ugly tackle

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[GoSouths]

The whinging coming out of Manly is laughable, especially considering the try they got away with. If you want to play ‘that call cost us the game’, you have to take into account that the only reason you were in the position you were in was that you were the beneficiary of bunker incompetence.

I’m fine if they want to change the rule to protect the player in the future. To be honest, I’d be ok if they decided to show some discretion and penalize CNK for not showing a duty of care. But given that there’s technically no foul in CNK’s actions, you can’t cry ‘travesty of justice’.

Annesley said CNK showed a duty of care. didnt have an issue with the tackle. Said you cant judge a tackle by if they get injured or not, as people get injured all the time in legitimate tackles.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

6 weeks to heal but he wants to play this weekend...

Sea Eagles reveal shocking extent of Reuben Garrick injury after ugly tackle

Sea Eagles reveal shocking extent of star’s injury after ugly tackle

www.foxsports.com.au

If Seibold plays him he needs the sack, nothing to play for let him rest up

 

[Philip_Smith007]

Just further on the CNK/Garrick situation (normal posting not drunk gameday troll posting - sorry once again) - the reason the rule is like it is, and it makes sense, is because defenders need certainty on when they are allowed to make a tackle. Hence we have a very clear rule that when a player is receiving a kick on the full, you have to allow for the fact that he might jump.

In a situation with e.g. a bouncing ball off a charge down, the defender is entitled to think that the attacking player is going to behave "normally". The same goes for any normal hit up - if an attacking player leaps into the air before the defensive line, he would probably be penalised (there was a famous example a few years ago of Vunivalu doing this on a kick return). There are two reasons for this - the obvious one is that it's dangerous, but the second reason is that it's unfair play because it puts the defender out of play and gives the attacking player an unfair advantage.

With the CNK/Garrick example, CNK is sprinting to make a tackle and then Garrick jumps. If he isn't allowed to make a tackle at this point then CNK would've run past him with his momentum and Garrick gets an unfair advantage. The logical alternative would be that Garrick should be penalised.

As others have mentioned, imagine DWZ does one of his leaps for the corner and a defender hits him at the right angle so that he flips over and comes down on his head. I'd hate to see it happen but if the defender is just attempting a normal tackle then I think it would be ridiculous to penalise that. I am not criticising DWZ for leaping for the corner, but you have to acknowledge that he's the one putting himself in danger.

Interesting point that wingers (mainly) diving for the corner under a new rule would not be allowed to be tackled as they are jumping.

 

[Philip_Smith007]

Confirmed fractured back for Garrick

Poor bastard wasn't apparently even going to get scans!
Needs to learn to take a bump!

 

[Beavers Headgear]

Interesting point that wingers (mainly) diving for the corner under a new rule would not be allowed to be tackled as they are jumping.

big difference being one is a contest for possession, and 1 a player already clearly has possession

There doesn’t even need to be a new rule, there is already stuff there for dangerous contact that easily covers this situation

“The contact must have involved an unacceptable risk of injury to the opposing player, and players have a special duty to avoid such contact”

 

[TheDMC]

Need to be careful changing the rules on this because of a one in a thousand instance of a bouncing ball in the air tackle that ended up with an injury. A rule disadvantaging the chasing player will see players start to excessively/unnecessarily jump to retrieve a bouncing ball to get that advantage.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Need to be careful changing the rules on this because of a one in a thousand instance of a bouncing ball in the air tackle that ended up with an injury. A rule disadvantaging the chasing player will see players start to excessively/unnecessarily jump to retrieve a bouncing ball to get that advantage.

Yeah people acting like this won’t happen because it doesn’t happen much now. It doesn’t happen much now because players receiving the ball know there is no advantage to them if they jump. Change that and you’ll get plenty of it.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

They had the opportunity years ago to change it, and advice from players suggested they should, but was never taken up. Was another Manly #1 injured that night as well lol

Broncos star Matt Gillett extends olive branch to injured Manly fullback Tom Trbojevic

Gillett extends olive branch to Trbojevic

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Surprised, usually when it’s someone like Turbo it gets attention
Remember when the seven tackle rule came in because teams were spoiling Billy Slaters fun by kicking dead (and the Warriors absolutely beat the Storm at least once by utilising that tactic)

 

[Izz]

Remember when the seven tackle rule came in because teams were spoiling Billy Slaters fun by kicking dead (and the Warriors absolutely beat the Storm at least once by utilising that tactic)

Maloney perfected it