NRL NRL 2024 - Round 10

[balmainforever]

Tipping!

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/pickem/picks/2024-nrl-board-tipping.129/?week_id=382

Thursday 9th May
Dolphins vs Manly-Warringah (Suncorp Stadium - 19:50)

Friday 10th May
Penrith vs Canterbury-Bankstown (BlueBet Stadium - 18:00)
Parramatta vs Brisbane (CommBank Stadium - 20:00)

Saturday 11th May
Wests Tigers vs Newcastle (Scully Park, Tamworth - 15:00)
St.George-Illawarra vs South Sydney (Netstrata Jubilee Stadium - 17:30)
Melbourne vs Cronulla-Sutherland (AAMI Park - 19:35)

Sunday 12th May
Sydney Roosters vs New Zealand (Allianz Stadium - 14:00)
Gold Coast vs North Queensland (Cbus Super Stadium - 16:05)

Bye: Canberra

 

[phantom13]

Don’t think I’ve called it dirty, did say it was careless and it’s in the lower scale of carelessness but it still meets that criteria. I love Grant but he made an error in judgement and unfortunately his team lost which magnifies it. The Cowboys one was the catalyst for all clubs getting another memo about it- should have got a bin and a penalty in that game (was against the Titans)

Nah you didn’t, others have though.

 

[Aucklander]

It was fairly minimal. The trip was probably worse

The wing certainly finished the job off.

 

[Aucklander]

Nah you didn’t, others have though.

Ban tackling. Ban running into other players. Ban running as it might cause an ACL injury.

It's ******* stupid what they did with Grant. If that's a sin bin, then maybe I am better off just watching paint dry.

 

[balmainforever]

Ban tackling. Ban running into other players. Ban running as it might cause an ACL injury.

It's ******* stupid what they did with Grant. If that's a sin bin, then maybe I am better off just watching paint dry.

Might be better not going to magic round

 

[PhatBoy]

The wing certainly finished the job off.

If this was an impassioned biased defence of my own team I’d leave the trip from Crichton out of it which I think he could face some scrutiny for: Keary’s ‘wing’ was little more than attempt to get Johnson on his back. He had his arm wrapped around Johnson’s shoulder and tried to roll him over during the course of the tackle. It looked a bit ordinary but there wasn’t a lot in it. A chicken wing by the traditional Storm definition basically looked like a tackler trying to dislocate someone’s arm behind their back.

 

[phantom13]

If this was an impassioned biased defence of my own team I’d leave the trip from Crichton out of it which I think he could face some scrutiny for: Keary’s ‘wing’ was little more than attempt to get Johnson on his back. He had his arm wrapped around Johnson’s shoulder and tried to roll him over during the course of the tackle. It looked a bit ordinary but there wasn’t a lot in it. A chicken wing by the traditional Storm definition basically looked like a tackler trying to dislocate someone’s arm behind their back.

Billy Slater noted that Keary let go of it before getting him anywhere near the ground too.

Wouldnt have an issue with some sort of sanction for it for "duty of care" but it looks alot more like an awkward accidental outcome than anything untoward

 

[PhatBoy]

Billy Slater noted that Keary let go of it before getting him anywhere near the ground too.

Wouldnt have an issue with some sort of sanction for it for "duty of care" but it looks alot more like an awkward accidental outcome than anything untoward

Exactly.

 

[Jatz]

$1000 fine is a slap on the wrist.

Actually good to see the blatant trip get a week.

The trip deserves a week but every other trip this season has been a fine. The consistency is terrible.

It should've been a sin bin at the time.

It's been creeping back into the game, they need to stamp it out.

 

[Jatz]

The Harry Grant thing was laughable.

I get wanting to protect the kicker but he's barely brushed him.

The Ilias one from NSW cup was dangerous, this one was nothing of the sort.

 

[phantom13]

The Harry Grant thing was laughable.

I get wanting to protect the kicker but he's barely brushed him.

The Ilias one from NSW cup was dangerous, this one was nothing of the sort.

It looks a bit like the old rougher the passer thing in the NFL, if youre not 10000000% sure you can get the ball and not the man then dont bother going after it.

 

[Jatz]

It looks a bit like the old rougher the passer thing in the NFL, if youre not 10000000% sure you can get the ball and not the man then dont bother going after it.

I mean at this point, just don't pressure the kicker at all. Which is ridiculous but it's not worth the sin bin.

I doubt Grant even noticed they'd touched at all.

 

[phantom13]

I mean at this point, just don't pressure the kicker at all. Which is ridiculous but it's not worth the sin bin.

I doubt Grant even noticed they'd touched at all.

Yeh, you watch defensive backs in the NFL try to nurse the QB to the ground or just bat the ball out now. Could see us going the same way and almost go a netball style stand a few feet off for the kick.

Ive seen a few HB's use it to run into the line before putting their kicks up helping the chase knowing they cant really be touched, its gonna be interesting to see how it develops. As you say the Grant one was such minimal contact smart halves are gonna see the opportunity to pinch another 5-10 metres and get a head start chasing their kicks

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The Harry Grant thing was laughable.

I get wanting to protect the kicker but he's barely brushed him.

The Ilias one from NSW cup was dangerous, this one was nothing of the sort.

Trips should be straight send offs no ifs or buts send them off.

We shouldn’t be penalising outcomes they are lucky they haven’t all ended like Ilias’ one

 

[Jatz]

Yeh, you watch defensive backs in the NFL try to nurse the QB to the ground or just bat the ball out now. Could see us going the same way and almost go a netball style stand a few feet off for the kick.

Ive seen a few HB's use it to run into the line before putting their kicks up helping the chase knowing they cant really be touched, its gonna be interesting to see how it develops. As you say the Grant one was such minimal contact smart halves are gonna see the opportunity to pinch another 5-10 metres and get a head start chasing their kicks

Well based off that one, halves would be stupid not to run right into the line to do it.

Worst case you kick from 5-10m further along, best case your opponent ends up one short.

 

[phantom13]

Trips should be straight send offs no ifs or buts send them off.

We shouldn’t be penalising outcomes they are lucky they haven’t all ended like Ilias’ one

As much as i bemoan the AFLs MRO it makes sense to have action and outcome considered.

If someone does an Ilias but it doesnt break a leg then it should be a suspension but not as long as it is if it does break someones leg.

The concussion example is the easiest. The same bump could be 1 week or 4 weeks depending on if it KOs someone or not. That makes sense to me.

 

[Jatz]

Trips should be straight send offs no ifs or buts send them off.

We shouldn’t be penalising outcomes they are lucky they haven’t all ended like Ilias’ one

There is absolutely zero way anyone could've ended up injured from that contact.

 

[Jatz]

As much as i bemoan the AFLs MRO it makes sense to have action and outcome considered.

If someone does an Ilias but it doesnt break a leg then it should be a suspension but not as long as it is if it does break someones leg.

The concussion example is the easiest. The same bump could be 1 week or 4 weeks depending on if it KOs someone or not. That makes sense to me.

I am totally against that.

Why should the same offence be graded differently based on who you hit? Accidentally getting a Brayshaw/Murphy/McCartin etc high shouldn't be any different to collecting a player with no concussion history high.

It's not on everyone else to be more protective of them because of their history.

 

[phantom13]

I am totally against that.

Why should the same offence be graded differently based on who you hit? Accidentally getting a Brayshaw/Murphy/McCartin etc high shouldn't be any different to collecting a player with no concussion history high.

It's not on everyone else to be more protective of them because of their history.

Less who you hit than the outcome of the hit.

I get not wanting it, i spent a long time thinking the same way but i also think in a modern risk reduction and safety POV it makes sense. In a way it should ensure stuff with intent is almost eliminated.

 

[Jatz]

Less who you hit than the outcome of the hit.

I get not wanting it, i spent a long time thinking the same way but i also think in a modern risk reduction and safety POV it makes sense. In a way it should ensure stuff with intent is almost eliminated.

But that's my point. McCartin/Brayshaw etc were getting concussed far more regularly due to their history with it.

It's not right that you should miss more weeks because who you've hit can be more easily concussed.

 

[phantom13]

But that's my point. McCartin/Brayshaw etc were getting concussed far more regularly due to their history with it.

It's not right that you should miss more weeks because who you've hit can be more easily concussed.

Your example is also now two players who have retired and arent ever going to be hit again.

Esepcially in League you should be assuming that every player on the field is susceptible to concussion so personally i dont take issue with it. I take your point, its just secondary to me.

 

[Jatz]

Your example is also now two players who have retired and arent ever going to be hit again.

Esepcially in League you should be assuming that every player on the field is susceptible to concussion so personally i dont take issue with it. I take your point, its just secondary to me.

Yes they are. Because they were constantly dealing with concussions. That is literally my point.

You don't see the problem with the exact same offence having wildly differing consequences?

 

[phantom13]

Yes they are. Because they were constantly dealing with concussions. That is literally my point.

You don't see the problem with the exact same offence having wildly differing consequences?

I think ive made pretty clear why i can see how it works.

Intent, Severity and Outcome are all considered. That makes sense to me, clearly it doesnt to you, thats fine, no need to shoot the messenger here.

 

[Jatz]

Surely the Tigers challenge the IPap trip.

Angus only copped a fine for his trip.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

As much as i bemoan the AFLs MRO it makes sense to have action and outcome considered.

If someone does an Ilias but it doesnt break a leg then it should be a suspension but not as long as it is if it does break someones leg.

The concussion example is the easiest. The same bump could be 1 week or 4 weeks depending on if it KOs someone or not. That makes sense to me.

See I don’t agree, a bloke gets lucky and doesn’t have the same outcome despite perfuming the same thing. Personally I’d be much happier when all actions are treated the same however I’m realistic and both the afl/nrl take luck into account

 

[LukeParkerno1]

There is absolutely zero way anyone could've ended up injured from that contact.

Only takes the player being hit in ten wrong area. It’s the lower end of carelessness but it was careless and treated accordingly