"Unnecessary" Contact With The Legs

[Danish]

Surely last night proves what a ridiculous rule the media has whipped up and imposed on us?

What Locke did to Ellis was about the least dangerous tackle I've ever seen penalised. All he did was come in on a still struggling forward Ellis and chop his legs out from under him, bringing him successfully to the ground..... And it almost cost his team a prelim.

A perfect example of yet another reactionary and unnecessary rule change brought in to appease media idiots with no practical understanding of the game.

IMO as long as the ball carrier is still legally allowed to offload, he is still fair game to be brought down by any legal means. A legs tackle is legal in our game and therefore is included in that. Seriously, how can doing what you can to tackle a player who could potentially promote the football be deemed "unnecessary"?

Change it back to how it was IC, and do it the day you gain power

 

[stormbati]

It starts with Vossy!!

 

[typicalfan]

And he didn't even come in at the side. Ridiculous penalty.

 

[Iafeta]

I can in one way understand the penalty in the fact he did go for the back of the legs. But I struggle on it on two counts. The Tigers player was still struggling to move forward, surely the defender has to make the play to stop momentum. In combination with that, two other Warriors were grabbing onto him from the hips up, therefore if Locke is going to come and stop momentum, where else is he going to tackle on the player? There needs to be an element of common sense.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

He came in after the other 2 were already holding (just after) & with a little bit of speed - I winced a bit when I saw it but on the dangerous scale it wasn't the worst we've seen. Taking out the legs is ok if you're there & it is just a wrap up. Locke's was a wee bit more than that - hence just the penalty.

 

[stormbati]

The Refs have to stop watching the Roast. Problem solved!

 

[Glen]

That was a bit of a harsh one on replay but they are not wrong to be concerned about tackles like this. It's a pretty easy way to get a bad knee injury or broken leg, especially the way Sandow was doing it

 

[evil_p091280]

I thought he hit him above the knee, on the hammy.

Either way, it wasn't that bad.

Did anyone see the ones by cam smith against weyman and green a few weeks ago vs dragons?

They were on the knee and from the side. Was shocking

No penalty.

(wonder if weyman got up and decked smith he would of got the penalty?)

 

[Doomednow]

Two things:

It was Kevin Locke, who weighs next to nothing.

It was from the back, so the legs just folded. An attack from the side is much more dangerous.

Ideally the tackle should be rubbed out of the game but that was both the softest example seen all year and the first time its been pulled up (I think?). It was also at a crucial moment in the game. The Tigers very nearly won the game of that joke of a penalty, and I suspect the refs would have been happy about that.

 

[snogard6]

I've only seen this tackle penalized twice, once against Dan Hunt (i think ) against the Roosters a few weeks ago, and last night............... And yes I do watch all of the Storm games aswell

 

[Danish]

That was a bit of a harsh one on replay but they are not wrong to be concerned about tackles like this. It's a pretty easy way to get a bad knee injury or broken leg, especially the way Sandow was doing it

If it's so dangerous then surely there would be a list of injuries incurred from them.... Or even one?

 

[Dr Crane]

in isolation, locke's tackle was as dangerous as a punch from david fa'alogo.

locke's wasn't dangerous, i can understand why it might be penalised - but to make the first call all season in a crucial stage of a knockout finals game when there's already a lopsided penalty count? you're joking.

 

[kurt faulk]

.

let's see if the refs penalise the storm when they do it. they are the masters at it and look like there is intent to injure when they attack the knees of a motionless player.

.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

.

let's see if the refs penalise the storm when they do it. they are the masters at it and look like there is intent to injure when they attack the knees of a motionless player.

.

Yes, they are the masters at it & they don't come in at speed or unnecessary force - they fold them up and lay them down like babies ffs. If they come in with unnecessary force, or at speed, they should be penalised too but the point is they don't. "intent to injure" & "attack" are emotive words that just don't apply. Take another look without your Stom-hate glasses on...

 

[2010Dragons]

Early in the game, the tigers did the EXACT same tackle and no penalty.
The commentators were the only ones who made comment.

No consistence

 

[MightyBronco]

He came in after the other 2 were already holding (just after) & with a little bit of speed - I winced a bit when I saw it but on the dangerous scale it wasn't the worst we've seen. Taking out the legs is ok if you're there & it is just a wrap up. Locke's was a wee bit more than that - hence just the penalty.

I agree with this. It was a pretty BS penalty, but touch n go. The tigers player, though still struggling, had stopped moving forward. If he would have come in slower, and done a more of a wrap tackle as apposed to a chop, he wouldnt have been penalised. This is how the storm do it.

 

[The European Polynesian]

Gareth Ellis still had a lot ov go forward before Locke came in. Unnecessary contact my fugginass

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

Surely last night proves what a ridiculous rule the media has whipped up and imposed on us?

What Locke did to Ellis was about the least dangerous tackle I've ever seen penalised. All he did was come in on a still struggling forward Ellis and chop his legs out from under him, bringing him successfully to the ground..... And it almost cost his team a prelim.

A perfect example of yet another reactionary and unnecessary rule change brought in to appease media idiots with no practical understanding of the game.

IMO as long as the ball carrier is still legally allowed to offload, he is still fair game to be brought down by any legal means. A legs tackle is legal in our game and therefore is included in that. Seriously, how can doing what you can to tackle a player who could potentially promote the football be deemed "unnecessary"?

Change it back to how it was IC, and do it the day you gain power

To me when a players being held up and another comes in and tackles below the knee it should be a penalty, above the knee fair enough.

 

[Parramatta1947]

As Gus said last night, yes it was unecessary and could be dangerous but there are a couple of those in most games. Why penalise that one? Why not penalise all the others?

I am just happy it didn't end 20-18, with that penalty deciding it.

 

[Perth Red]

Lets face it the refs penalised Warriors at every opportunity last night so no surprise. Was ridiculous though and as we saw the other week if third man doesn;t come in the attacking player has an age to offload the ball.