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]

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

And again, thats fine. We dont have to agree.

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

This is kind of my point.

Do you want Ilias and Grants incidents to have the same suspension cause they are the same action. So intent would be the same (careless possibly reckless) intent similar as well but outcome is what changes them. Impact would be the other one, but without those catagories Grant and Ilias incidents would need to be very very similar (and lets not forget plenty of people at the time of the ilias one were saying he had every right to challenge the kick)

 

[LukeParkerno1]

And again, thats fine. We dont have to agree.

This is kind of my point.

Do you want Ilias and Grants incidents to have the same suspension cause they are the same action. So intent would be the same (careless possibly reckless) intent similar as well but outcome is what changes them. Impact would be the other one, but without those catagories Grant and Ilias incidents would need to be very very similar (and lets not forget plenty of people at the time of the ilias one were saying he had every right to challenge the kick)

Personally there’s grades of carelessness but injury or lack of wouldn’t come into it. Get rid of fines for this incident have a week as the starting point. Then go up depending on the action itself. I’ve said it for ages I hate injuries coming into the sanction always have

 

[phantom13]

Personally there’s grades of carelessness but injury or lack of wouldn’t come into it. Get rid of fines for this incident have a week as the starting point. Then go up depending on the action itself. I’ve said it for ages I hate injuries coming into the sanction always have

So you take injury out of it and the difference between Ilias and Grant is likely 2 weeks (1 week to 3 weeks).

Im not really comfortable with that.

Again the MRO hecks up the consistency and application but their system i think is actually pretty considered.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So you take injury out of it and the difference between Ilias and Grant is likely 2 weeks (1 week to 3 weeks).

Im not really comfortable with that.

Again the MRO hecks up the consistency and application but their system i think is actually pretty considered.

No because the Ilias one would be graded the higher grade of careless but I have a huge problem with all these fines that do nothing other than fatten the nrl’s bank accounts it’s not stopping behaviour. Grant would be a week for mine.

 

[phantom13]

No because the Ilias one would be graded the higher grade of careless but I have a huge problem with all these fines that do nothing other than fatten the nrl’s bank accounts it’s not stopping behaviour. Grant would be a week for mine.

Yeh, ive just noted that it would be higher because of carelessness but you have 1 criteria. What are you gonna do have 7 levels of it?

Take the AFL model and say that one is deemed Careless (Grant) and one is intentional (Ilias) that difference is 2 weeks.

Add in impact and intent and you can have an additional 4 weeks (or the really dumb aspect of the MRO it then goes to a tribunal).

Again, the MRO isnt perfect but having the outcome as a FACTOR (not the only and not even the defining) makes sense to me.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yeh, ive just noted that it would be higher because of carelessness but you have 1 criteria. What are you gonna do have 7 levels of it?

Take the AFL model and say that one is deemed Careless (Grant) and one is intentional (Ilias) that difference is 2 weeks.

Add in impact and intent and you can have an additional 4 weeks (or the really dumb aspect of the MRO it then goes to a tribunal).

Again, the MRO isnt perfect but having the outcome as a FACTOR (not the only and not even the defining) makes sense to me.

I'd have 4 levels, each level going up 2 weeks per level, and you'd only need the 4th one if it's borderline deliberate, so in other words

Level 1: 1-2 weeks (this would be the Grant style ones minor but it's worth a penalty), minimum of a week
Level 2: 3-4 weeks
Level 3: 5-6 weeks
Level 4: 7-8 weeks (basically close to deliberate)- happy if these are referred straight to the tribunal too ungraded.

No more fines, it it a terrible system doesn't do anything.

 

[phantom13]

I'd have 4 levels, each level going up 2 weeks per level, and you'd only need the 4th one if it's borderline deliberate, so in other words

Level 1: 1-2 weeks (this would be the Grant style ones minor but it's worth a penalty), minimum of a week
Level 2: 3-4 weeks
Level 3: 5-6 weeks
Level 4: 7-8 weeks (basically close to deliberate)- happy if these are referred straight to the tribunal too ungraded.

No more fines, it it a terrible system doesn't do anything.

Awfully subjective but fair enough

 

[Jatz]

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

We fundamentally disagree on this. I've seen people walking down the street bump into each other harder than what Grant did.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

We fundamentally disagree on this. I've seen people walking down the street bump into each other harder than what Grant did.

We aren't going to agree, that is 100% fine. Personally I feel players know what they are doing and he could have aborted. Was careless.

 

[phantom13]

We fundamentally disagree on this. I've seen people walking down the street bump into each other harder than what Grant did.

We aren't going to agree, that is 100% fine. Personally I feel players know what they are doing and he could have aborted. Was careless.

Gonna be an issue when grading it id say

 

[Jatz]

He wasn't even looking at him and basically hit him at walking pace.

For the record, sending Grant to the bin should be the punishment. There's no reason to extend this beyond Saturday. He was deemed to have committed a foul play act, he was punished and Cronulla got the advantage. Leave it at that.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Gonna be an issue when grading it id say

Not really, the eye test tells everything

 

[phantom13]

Not really, the eye test tells everything

Your eyes versus others eyes.

Interestingly if you took impact/outcome into account he probably wouldnt be suspended at all, still against it Jatz ?

 

[Jatz]

Your eyes versus others eyes.

Interestingly if you took impact/outcome into account he probably wouldnt be suspended at all, still against it Jatz ?

Unequivocally.

 

[Aucklander]

4 charges against the Roosters all for dangerous contact.

The Keary one was missed by all match officials at the ground who in their wisdom deemed there was nothing wrong with it.

 

[Aucklander]

 

[Jatz]

That headline is hilariously wrong.

No implications we've done anything wrong. It's his idiot father and is separate to us.

 

[PhatBoy]

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

No it wasn’t. He actually took all due care - I’m assuming we are still talking about the grant incident.

He didn’t even target the legs, which is the whole reason the rule was brought in. He literally never left his feet and he walked past.

It was a pathetic ruling and if they want to drive fans away, this is a great way to do it.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No it wasn’t. He actually took all due care - I’m assuming we are still talking about the grant incident.

He didn’t even target the legs, which is the whole reason the rule was brought in. He literally never left his feet and he walked past.

It was a pathetic ruling and if they want to drive fans away, this is a great way to do it.

We are never going to agree on this, I don’t think personally Grant did take all duty of care if he did he would have aborted and not made contact. Whether it’s my team or an opposition team I expect this to be the ruling. It was on the lower end but it’s still careless.

 

[PhatBoy]

We are never going to agree on this, I don’t think personally Grant did take all duty of care if he did he would have aborted and not made contact. Whether it’s my team or an opposition team I expect this to be the ruling. It was on the lower end but it’s still careless.

He did abort. You can’t accuse someone of not taking duty of care when they are literally walking past someone.

It’s a joke mate.

Tell me when he’s attacked the legs. Come on, make an argument.

You’ve mentioned this directive that was sent out. You’ve failed to address what has been apparently 10 other incidents where contact has been made this season where not even a penalty was blown - so either the directly wasn’t listened to or it didn’t happen, or the directive was about ATTACKING the legs.

Where was the attack on the legs.

Make a case.

 

[PhatBoy]

4 charges against the Roosters all for dangerous contact.

The Keary one was missed by all match officials at the ground who in their wisdom deemed there was nothing wrong with it.

There really wasn’t. It was awkward but you can’t charge someone with getting someone into an awkward position if there’s nothing illegal in it

 

[LukeParkerno1]

He did abort. You can’t accuse someone of not taking duty of care when they are literally walking past someone.

It’s a joke mate.

Tell me when he’s attacked the legs. Come on, make an argument.

You’ve mentioned this directive that was sent out. You’ve failed to address what has been apparently 10 other incidents where contact has been made this season where not even a penalty was blown - so either the directly wasn’t listened to or it didn’t happen, or the directive was about ATTACKING the legs.

Where was the attack on the legs.

Make a case.

He made contact with the legs you cannot do it it’s that simple. When a player is kicking the ball you CANNOT make any contact with the lower limbs that is where the issues can arise. The NRL sent memo’s on this during the season and before the season that this is the ruling. Teams and players had all off season to adjust their “kick pressure”, we don’t need more Ilias’ incidents.

Just becuase other incidents weren’t penalised and that’s on the poor refereeing there does not mean this ruling is wrong. Ideally they’d all be penalised and put in the bin. That’s what should be happening hopefully players get the message this week.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

There really wasn’t. It was awkward but you can’t charge someone with getting someone into an awkward position if there’s nothing illegal in it

Was nothing in the Keary one, SJ literally carried that injury into the game. Keary would have to be the cleanest player ever like he’s going out there to chicken wing blokes.

 

[PhatBoy]

He made contact with the legs you cannot do it it’s that simple. When a player is kicking the ball you CANNOT make any contact with the lower limbs that is where the issues can arise. The NRL sent memo’s on this during the season and before the season that this is the ruling. Teams and players had all off season to adjust their “kick pressure”, we don’t need more Ilias’ incidents.

Just becuase other incidents weren’t penalised and that’s on the poor refereeing there does not mean this ruling is wrong. Ideally they’d all be penalised and put in the bin. That’s what should be happening hopefully players get the message this week.

Since when? The crackdown did not even address sin binning to begin with anyway, it addressed penalising players.

So at worst, the referee should be assessing it as a technical penalty.

What is your argument? Mate high tackles are illegal. Lifting tackles are illegal. Shoulder charges are illegal. There are many many physically penalisable aspects of the game - not professional fouls, separate issue - of the game, that are, if you want to go down that route, penalisable.

All of them were brought into the game to enhance the safety of the game.

They were, and always have been, policed level by level at degrees based around potential to cause harm, harm caused, etc etc.

Yet you want THIS to be policed and punished differently to all those other acts?


So you’re happy with the Bromwich-Turbo slap incident for example: you’d like him to go to the sin bin for that?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Since when? The crackdown did not even address sin binning to begin with anyway, it addressed penalising players.

So at worst, the referee should be assessing it as a technical penalty.

What is your argument? Mate high tackles are illegal. Lifting tackles are illegal. Shoulder charges are illegal. There are many many physically penalisable aspects of the game - not professional fouls, separate issue - of the game, that are, if you want to go down that route, penalisable.

All of them were brought into the game to enhance the safety of the game.

They were, and always have been, policed level by level at degrees based around potential to cause harm, harm caused, etc etc.

Yet you want THIS to be policed and punished differently to all those other acts?


So you’re happy with the Bromwich-Turbo slap incident for example: you’d like him to go to the sin bin for that?

The Turbo one was high it’s a penalty don’t hit the bloke high it’s fairly simple actually aim lower. Soft yes but it’s high. Simply put these players have life after footy they don’t need more head issues we have seen players retire becuase of it.