NRL NRL 2021 Season - Finals Week 1

[PhatBoy]

Additionally this stupid notion of penalising someone for challenging at the judiciary - this isn’t the western legal system where guilty pleas are beneficial to all involved because they save months and years of investigation, legal red tape, victim impact and tying up the courts.
It’s a few ex players turning up to watch a video. Why does someone get double punishment for daring to challenge it?

 

[phantom13]

Additionally this stupid notion of penalising someone for challenging at the judiciary - this isn’t the western legal system where guilty pleas are beneficial to all involved because they save months and years of investigation, legal red tape, victim impact and tying up the courts.
It’s a few ex players turning up to watch a video. Why does someone get double punishment for daring to challenge it?

Honestly both the AFL and NRL setting the whole thing up like a court is dumb. I can only assume the higher ups have shares in Old Boy mates legal firms and saw this as the best way to make some coin off the clubs.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No it’s not.

he can’t disappear. No movement towards the ball carrier. No leading with the shoulder. No swinging arm. A contact sport needs allowances for things that can’t be avoided in the normal profession of the sport.
His only means of avoiding that was to step out of the way. Using your logic a runner could cart the ball up head first ala Richard Villasanti and get himself knocked out every hit up and the defender would get suspended.

utterly ridiculous decision and the logic behind it goes against everything sport stands for. Especially when Junior Pauli gets off for a worse effort

Players need to get it through their heads to aim lower. You just can’t attack the head at all. This all came from YOUR coach having a whinge you know wouldn’t have been charged 5 months ago so perhaps blame him first.

Plenty of teams have had softer charges this year it’s not limited to the Roosters where JWH has got off a dozen this season.

 

[phantom13]

Players need to get it through their heads to aim lower. You just can’t attack the head at all. This all came from YOUR coach having a whinge you know wouldn’t have been charged 5 months ago so perhaps blame him first.

Plenty of teams have had softer charges this year it’s not limited to the Roosters where JWH has got off a dozen this season.

Not quite that simple, do that and then were gonna have a game with offloads galore and teams will need to implement a way to counter that.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Not quite that simple, do that and then were gonna have a game with offloads galore and teams will need to implement a way to counter that.

Hasn’t stopped Melbourne or Penrith or the top sides doing it. You can’t go near the head.

 

[phantom13]

One would argue Verillis didnt, he got his shoulder headbutted.

Oh and you can if youre Junior Paulo (or one of many others who have been cleared for high shots this year)

 

[PhatBoy]

Players need to get it through their heads to aim lower. You just can’t attack the head at all. This all came from YOUR coach having a whinge you know wouldn’t have been charged 5 months ago so perhaps blame him first.

Plenty of teams have had softer charges this year it’s not limited to the Roosters where JWH has got off a dozen this season.

Our coach had a whinge because a blatant send off wasn’t a send off. Drew Hutchison had his ribs crushed and that wasn’t either. Are you saying he was wrong? He wasn’t asking for suspensions to be increased he was asking for onfield decisions to be made equally.

what good is a player knowing he can’t contact the head, if he is in a position where he can’t avoid it?

I know to drive on the left side of the road as legislation dictates, but if a car is broken down in front of me and I swerve to miss it, I’m not going to be charged

 

[LukeParkerno1]

One would argue Verillis didnt, he got his shoulder headbutted.

Oh and you can if youre Junior Paulo (or one of many others who have been cleared for high shots this year)

Paulo should have gone too. Doesn’t make the Verrils decision wrong. Both should have been suspended

 

[PhatBoy]

Let me ask you this, as per the Toby Greene

4

Toby Greene

Age

30

Ht

182cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.7

5star

K

12.5

5star

HB

10.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.0

5star

G

1.2

4star

D

17.5

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.8

4star

T

1.0

2star

G

2.3

5star

D

26.6

5star

K

12.4

5star

HB

14.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.6

5star

G

0.0

1star

issue. We all know the umpire can’t be touched and it’s an automatic suspension. Say Greene was standing stationary and the umpire walks towards him and just keeps going and takes Greene’s shoulder, should Greene be suspended?

 

[phantom13]

Paulo should have gone too. Doesn’t make the Verrils decision wrong. Both should have been suspended

It kinda does, theres a saying in law (which the tribunal has now posited itself as).

100 guilty men should be free before 1 innocent man is locked up.

You yourself acknowledge the inconsistency but then defend the position and the tribunal, its a weird stance to have.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Let me ask you this, as per the Toby Greene issue. We all know the umpire can’t be touched and it’s an automatic suspension. Say Greene was standing stationary and the umpire walks towards him and just keeps going and takes Greene’s shoulder, should Greene be suspended?

Yes he should be suspended if that’s the rule. Honestly I’m over players finding ways to infringe. Just play the game fairly.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It kinda does, theres a saying in law (which the tribunal has now posited itself as).

100 guilty men should be free before 1 innocent man is locked up.

You yourself acknowledge the inconsistency but then defend the position and the tribunal, its a weird stance to have.

The tribunal is there to make a call on the case presented. The case was clear, hit him high and caused injury. Was careless.

The other one is on the Match Review Committee and that is where I do have an issue with. There shouldn’t be inconsistency with the MRP, that’s what gets fans annoyed.

 

[phantom13]

Yes he should be suspended if that’s the rule. Honestly I’m over players finding ways to infringe. Just play the game fairly.

He almost got cleared for making contact himself and you think he should be suspended if the umpire initiates...

Jesus

 

[PhatBoy]

Yes he should be suspended if that’s the rule. Honestly I’m over players finding ways to infringe. Just play the game fairly.

How is that finding a way to infringe and how is it unfair.

I don’t know whether you’ve played league or not - I’m not one of those ‘you have to have played to comment’ people but I’m perplexed if you’ve played, what you think Verrills can do in that situation?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

How is that finding a way to infringe and how is it unfair.

I don’t know whether you’ve played league or not - I’m not one of those ‘you have to have played to comment’ people but I’m perplexed if you’ve played, what you think Verrills can do in that situation?

Not hit him in the head. Wrap around without going high. The third man in is the biggest blight on the game anyway. You don't need to go high and for the record I played RL all through my teenage life.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

He almost got cleared for making contact himself and you think he should be suspended if the umpire initiates...

Jesus

If you start letting players off they will push the boundaries more and more. The game is the cleanest it's been we don't need concussion type scenarios after people retire. The old "it's just a head knock, run it off" doesn't fly nowadays. You realise how much deep water the NRL would be if they aren't seen to be treating head knocks seriously.

 

[phantom13]

If you start letting players off they will push the boundaries more and more. The game is the cleanest it's been we don't need concussion type scenarios after people retire. The old "it's just a head knock, run it off" doesn't fly nowadays. You realise how much deep water the NRL would be if they aren't seen to be treating head knocks seriously.

Yeh literally no one is saying to let blokes hit in the head or go back to the 80s and 90s but you also cant penalise a player for a runner slipping or leading with the head.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yeh literally no one is saying to let blokes hit in the head or go back to the 80s and 90s but you also cant penalise a player for a runner slipping or leading with the head.

Duty of care still exists despite what Phil Knucklehead Gould thinks.

The issue and the main one isn't what the judiciary did- it's the MRP. They have been horribly inconsistent all year, we had Cleary let off for a shoulder charge with a couple of rounds to go because lets be frank he's a poster child. Then we have this round where they got the Verrils decision correct, but the Paulo one horrible wrong...then they give some Knights player 3 weeks to seem tough. If anything this is the party of the game that needs an overhaul, Annesly is either ordinary or he needs help because it's been so inconsistent.

The judiciary have actually been good this year, can't think of a case that was blatantly wrong. Thought JWH was lucky one of the times but from memory I did say it was 50/50 so I'm not shocked the panel sided with him.

 

[PhatBoy]

Not hit him in the head. Wrap around without going high. The third man in is the biggest blight on the game anyway. You don't need to go high and for the record I played RL all through my teenage life.

That’s precisely what he was positioned to do. That is the literal reason he was standing where he’s standing. To wrap around the ball carrier’s midriff and chest. He is, as per the technique every player has drilled into him, positioned there precisely to do what you’ve just described. Unfortunately in the split second before he gets to do it, the ball carrier falls forward into his shoulder. It’s not the carrier’s fault, it’s not the tackler’s fault. It simply happened.
He wasn’t the third man in.

kelly runs off his left foot towards where Verrills is standing in the line. Verrills sees this and moves towards Kelly. As he’s about 2 metres from Kelly he stops and braces himself to make the tackle. Sitili Tuponua tackles him from the other side and Kelly buckles and drops about a foot in height and hits Verrills on the shoulder. No one has that reaction time. Every player to a man is taught ‘one low one high, wrap the ball.’ It’s not only coached, it’s common sense.

 

[PhatBoy]

Duty of care still exists despite what Phil Knucklehead Gould thinks.

The issue and the main one isn't what the judiciary did- it's the MRP. They have been horribly inconsistent all year, we had Cleary let off for a shoulder charge with a couple of rounds to go because lets be frank he's a poster child. Then we have this round where they got the Verrils decision correct, but the Paulo one horrible wrong...then they give some Knights player 3 weeks to seem tough. If anything this is the party of the game that needs an overhaul, Annesly is either ordinary or he needs help because it's been so inconsistent.

The judiciary have actually been good this year, can't think of a case that was blatantly wrong. Thought JWH was lucky one of the times but from memory I did say it was 50/50 so I'm not shocked the panel sided with him.

duty of care exists in cricket too but Phil Hughes still died. It happens. Duty of care can’t prevent accidents

 

[phantom13]

Duty of care still exists despite what Phil Knucklehead Gould thinks.

The issue and the main one isn't what the judiciary did- it's the MRP. They have been horribly inconsistent all year, we had Cleary let off for a shoulder charge with a couple of rounds to go because lets be frank he's a poster child. Then we have this round where they got the Verrils decision correct, but the Paulo one horrible wrong...then they give some Knights player 3 weeks to seem tough. If anything this is the party of the game that needs an overhaul, Annesly is either ordinary or he needs help because it's been so inconsistent.

The judiciary have actually been good this year, can't think of a case that was blatantly wrong. Thought JWH was lucky one of the times but from memory I did say it was 50/50 so I'm not shocked the panel sided with him.

Were not discussing duty of care and even if we were what about the ball runners duty of care to themselves?

As with the AFL i lump the tribunal and MRP in the same boat.

 

[phantom13]

I assume that you were appalled by the decision to let David McKay off when he broke Hunter Clarks jaw then?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Were not discussing duty of care and even if we were what about the ball runners duty of care to themselves?

As with the AFL i lump the tribunal and MRP in the same boat.

They are completely different entities. The judiciary has done well this year. It isn't as if this decision is the worst one...I mean Murray copped a week for a soft crusher a few weeks ago, we had Kaufusi get off that terrible charge earlier in the season. In general the judiciary side is fine. It is the MRP and maybe Annesly as good as he's one needs a second set of eyes.

 

[phantom13]

They are completely different entities. The judiciary has done well this year. It isn't as if this decision is the worst one...I mean Murray copped a week for a soft crusher a few weeks ago, we had Kaufusi get off that terrible charge earlier in the season. In general the judiciary side is fine. It is the MRP and maybe Annesly as good as he's one needs a second set of eyes.

They both enforce the suspendable offences on behalf of the NRL.

They are seperate entities engaged by the same entity to effectively do the same thing.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

That’s precisely what he was positioned to do. That is the literal reason he was standing where he’s standing. To wrap around the ball carrier’s midriff and chest. He is, as per the technique every player has drilled into him, positioned there precisely to do what you’ve just described. Unfortunately in the split second before he gets to do it, the ball carrier falls forward into his shoulder. It’s not the carrier’s fault, it’s not the tackler’s fault. It simply happened.
He wasn’t the third man in.

kelly runs off his left foot towards where Verrills is standing in the line. Verrills sees this and moves towards Kelly. As he’s about 2 metres from Kelly he stops and braces himself to make the tackle. Sitili Tuponua tackles him from the other side and Kelly buckles and drops about a foot in height and hits Verrills on the shoulder. No one has that reaction time. Every player to a man is taught ‘one low one high, wrap the ball.’ It’s not only coached, it’s common sense.

You can go around the ball without going near the nose or face or anywhere that is even going to cause head trauma. I mean the Roosters love a good whinge when it affects them but when it's against them they want the rules applied differently. Verrils wouldn't even be in the worst 10 decisions of the year there have been plenty worse.