Stay Classy Brissy

[AlwaysGreen]

Don't need to change the rules, just don't have some dickhead on Twitter or whatever the f**k it is crowing about an incident that seriously hurt an opposition player.

 

[Pedge1971]

You guys better wrap this up, because THE CHAMP will be here shortly and he will take no prisoners.

Please not THE CHIMP. Anything but THE CHIMP!

 

[Stormwarrior82]

The rule needs to be changed. Back when the rule on tackling a defending player in the air was introduced it didn't go far enough for player safety. It meant you COULD tackle an attacking player in the air. Now I'm no genius but I can see that the same injuries could occur either way. All kicks need to be included in the blanket banning of tackling players in the air. Believe it or not but grubbers can bounce in the air (beaver). Now typical manly fans are whinging again but this rule is not new. You didn't have a chance to win this year anyway so losing turbo isn't that bad. I didn't here you complaining about it before this week?

 

[Barkley]

Considering Jharal Yow Yeh had his career cut short due to a legally contested bomb, you think Brisbane might be a little more sympathetic to this situation. It was certainly in poor taste.

 

[adamkungl]

If you think attacking players should have mid-air protection then you obviously haven't thought it through at all.

Looking at the posters who are suggesting it.. not surprised really

 

[Iafeta]

I think there should be an onus on the defensive player trying to help protect the attacking players fall, but going for the ball is fair game. Otherwise what if a player jumps and catches a bouncing ball in goal, you just let the lad drop down and score?

 

[TheFrog]

Funny how this legal tackle has caused such a kerfuffle, yet this time last year when Te Maire Martin was smashed on suspicion and put out for the season no-one said boo.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I'd rather see the scourge of the blocker eradicated first.

 

[betcats]

Don't change the rule imo. Rugby league comes with risk, you cannot remove it from the game. If they let the ball bounce defenders have to prepare to get hammered.

 

[chigurh]

Deal with it

 

[Nice Beaver]

Never tried to justify the tweet. Pointing out the hysteria around here (mostly from you BTW)

Yeah....hysteria.

Calling out your club for being shitheads is hysteria.

Keep going, Grimey.

 

[FireFalcons1]

Absolutely scum...

Boot these scumbags out of the comp please.

 

[LineBall]

I'd rather see the scourge of the blocker eradicated first.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, it's another example of refs ignoring the rule book.

 

[TheVelourFog]

I think there should be an onus on the defensive player trying to help protect the attacking players fall, but going for the ball is fair game. Otherwise what if a player jumps and catches a bouncing ball in goal, you just let the lad drop down and score?

No, you contest the catch

 

[adamkungl]

If attacking players were not allowed to be tackled in the air you would quickly see bomb on the try line become the only play used by any sensible coach.

And then you clowns would sook about too many tries from kicks.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Yeah....hysteria.

Calling out your club for being shitheads is hysteria.

Keep going, Grimey.

Glad you agree with me.

 

[Iafeta]

No, you contest the catch

You do that anyway. Sometimes it doesn't work. Adamkungl is right, if you put a rule in place as is suggested, you will return to a ton of cross field bombs setting up a large portion of tries.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Not sure anyone is suggesting attacking players should be protected against mid-air tackles. Most are suggesting that the ball bouncing exemption is taken out of the current rule for defending players - which I believe would be an unnecessary and problematic move.

 

[Hawkins]

Don't change the rule imo. Rugby league comes with risk, you cannot remove it from the game. If they let the ball bounce defenders have to prepare to get hammered.

Meat Puppets

 

[adamkungl]

Not sure anyone is suggesting attacking players should be protected against mid-air tackles. Most are suggesting that the ball bouncing exemption is taken out of the current rule for defending players - which I believe would be an unnecessary and problematic move.

More than a few people have suggested the rule should apply to both attack and defence, this argument comes up about once a month.

I agree with no change to the current rule, anyway. Changing a rule because of a single instance of injury is ridiculous in a game where there are worse injuries almost every week.