What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Sanity prevails..... Sa & Ennis cleared to play

Ribs

Bench
Messages
3,426
How did the NRL "ok" tackling on suspiscion??
.

match review commissioner Greg McCallum said. "If you are going to run as a decoy, you've got to be prepared to be tackled."

This is exactly where the NRL ok'd it.
 

Danish

Referee
Messages
32,019
match review commissioner Greg McCallum said. "If you are going to run as a decoy, you've got to be prepared to be tackled."

This is exactly where the NRL ok'd it.



Sounds like good advice to me. If Creagh had been bracing himself for a hit like he would have been if he was actually expecting the ball chances are he would not have ended up so hurt.


I am missing the part where he said it wont draw a penalty though.
 

Ribs

Bench
Messages
3,426
There was no mention by the match review committee or anyone else that the referee's decision not to award a penalty was right or wrong.

McCallum has basically indicated that decoy runners should expect to get hit. Its there in black and white. Had he gone on to clarify then sure, he may have said it differently. But he didnt, did he?
 

Gaba

First Grade
Messages
8,197
There was no mention by the match review committee or anyone else that the referee's decision not to award a penalty was right or wrong.

McCallum has basically indicated that decoy runners should expect to get hit. Its there in black and white. Had he gone on to clarify then sure, he may have said it differently. But he didnt, did he?

Harrigan admitted it was illegal and should have been a penalty to the dragons, you cant take a player out whether it was an accident or not without the ball,

So you have the referee spokes person saying its an illegal act and the ref and video ref was wrong not to award the penalty
 

Ribs

Bench
Messages
3,426
Harrigan admitted it was illegal and should have been a penalty to the dragons, you cant take a player out whether it was an accident or not without the ball,

So you have the referee spokes person saying its an illegal act and the ref and video ref was wrong not to award the penalty

Finally someone read the rulebook.
 

condochook

Juniors
Messages
243
Ainscough was rightfully penalised for foul play. Sa wasnt. I would have been surprised if he was suspended but I thought a grade 1 careless was in order. Given they made sure O'Meley got the maximum without suspension though, I'm far from surprised.

Sa knocked out a player off the ball, thats a fact. Its also illegal going by the rules but whats done is done.

I stand by my thoughts on Mini, you guys created the prowler and do it so much O'Meley almost caned one of your own. I really hope Mini gets a prowler in the lower back.
:D:sarcasm::D:sarcasm: do the oki chokie do the oki chokie.
AHHHH Greg Norman's favourite footy team.
St Merge awwarra:lol:
 

Danish

Referee
Messages
32,019
There was no mention by the match review committee or anyone else that the referee's decision not to award a penalty was right or wrong.

McCallum has basically indicated that decoy runners should expect to get hit. Its there in black and white. Had he gone on to clarify then sure, he may have said it differently. But he didnt, did he?


You don't think that a person running at the line, whos very job description involves trying to draw the defense off the ball, should expect to get hit??


Pretty sound advice to me.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
110,182
Look you are all wrong

The god of all that is right Willow told me so.

He said fitzys wasnt a try because the ref didnt award it.

He said the dragoons were not off-side because the ref didnt penalise them

He said gasnier didnt knock on in goal because he gave the roosters a drop out.

So going by these decisions, Sa done nothing wrong because he wasnt penalised nor charged and O Meley was the victim of a diorty player trying to buy a rest and a penalty.

If you dont believe me ask Willow
What? lol

Way to take someone out of context.

1. For a start, I said the try wasn't awarded, but I also said the ref should have gone to the video ref. I also said the ref made a mistake. For most people that would be considered a reasonable view, but don't let that get in the way of a good yarn.

2. I never said Saints were never offside. You just made that up. I questioned your exaggeration that Saints were 'constantly' offside.

3. I never debated or even commented on this Gasnier incident.

4. I never said anything of the sort.

I believe you're responding to a thread in the Dragons forum. Perhaps by falsely referencing me here in this forum you thought I'd miss it?

I don't mind a fair argument and I'm all for a frank exchange of views, but at least try and have a real debate, not a made up one.
 

Cockadoodledoo

First Grade
Messages
5,045
Are people that lazy they can't copy and paste article content? sheesh!



The Sa shot was ordinary and off the ball and worth AT LEAST one week for mine. F*cking disgraceful.

It was a headclash.. To my knowledge no player in the history of the game has ever been suspended for a headclash. Not even Villasanti (sp) for his shot on Fittler in the 2002 Grand Final.. Should have been a penalty for taking out a decoy runner but let's face it, the whole idea of the decoy runner is to fool the defence and it worked.. Just the Saints didn't receive the penalty they should have got..

Mind you, how come there was nothing for Beau Scott and his tackle across the face of Anasta, that was no different to O'Meley's.
 

Cockadoodledoo

First Grade
Messages
5,045
lets see your reaction when pearce is fked up in the same way.

there's nothing wrong the physicallity of the hit. it's the fact creagh never had, or looked like receiving the football.

That's easy said sitting in the comfort of the lounge room watching the slow motion replays after the event.. A little different when standing on your try line defending with runners left and right of the ball carrier.. It's a good thing the morons in this place aren't on the match review committee..

If Sa knew Creagh wasn't going to get the ball he would have marked up against someone he did think was going to get the ball.
 

Cockadoodledoo

First Grade
Messages
5,045
that cool - the bar has been set ... prepare for less scupulous coaches to take advantage of the precedent ...

dont for a minute think that Gallen wont be sweating on hits like this .. or Watmough ..

Ennis for sure will have this one filed away in his brain cell for the game against the roosters ...

Gallen has made a career on high shots, and Watmough, well there are things I could say but they would probably get me banned.. So this hardly sets a precedent..

You would think Creagh was the first player to ever get tackled on suspicion.. He would have bounced straight to his feet had there not been an accidental headclash..
 

Cockadoodledoo

First Grade
Messages
5,045
if that was a Mitchell Pearce/Jonathon Thurston/Darren Lockyer running that line and getting hit like that then whoever did it would have no chance to play the next week and there is no way anyone could say they would get off

When we played Newcastle, Pearce was hit late about a half dozen times after kicking the ball away and nothing eventuated.
 

Latest posts

Top