1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ballin and Watmough charged

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Kiwi Eagle, Sep 13, 2010.

  1. Kiwi Eagle

    Kiwi Eagle Moderator Staff Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    14,488
    1,734
    Ratings:
    +2,425 / 31
    But no suspensions for either

    Two Panthers Charged; No Charge for Ellis

    Two Panthers players are among five charged by the NRL Match Review Committee today from the weekend's Telstra Premiership Qualifying Finals, while Tigers' Gareth Ellis, who was placed on report during his side's dramatic loss to the Roosters, avoided a charge.

    Penrith's Tim Grant was charged with a Grade 1 careless high tackle but will not miss a game; while team-mate Iosefa Masada was charged with Grade 1 dangerous contact for unnecesary arm/ shoulder pressure and will escape suspension with an early plea.

    The warriors' Brett Seymour faces a 1-2 week ban for a Grade 2 striking charge in the Titans clash; and the Eagles' Matt Ballin and Anthony Watmough will both avoid suspension if they take the early plea on Grade 1 dangerous contact charges in their 28-0 drubbing from the Dragons.
     
  2. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,418
    Ratings:
    +3,625 / 132
    if they fight it and lose will they have to sit out the first trial (unlikely to play based on past years anyway) but have less carry over points?

    If so fight it, win/win
     
  3. Nthn NSW

    Nthn NSW Active Member

    700
    59
    Ratings:
    +59 / 0
    Surprise surprise!!! Tigers player not charged over his hit which most players would get a week or 2.Proves they are the NRL's 2010 darlings.And thats why I hate 'em... :mad:
     
  4. ads

    ads Well-Known Member

    1,633
    26
    Ratings:
    +28 / 1
    Yeah was gonna say the same thing Fluffy - if all they miss is a trial plead not guilty and have less carry over!
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    Although I am glad to see that Dyer from the tigers didn't get charged for his hit on Hargraves.  It was a beauty and hargraves doesn't remember anything about it.  He has made himself a big target with the way he plays
     
  6. SeaEagleRock8

    SeaEagleRock8 Sea Eagle Lach Staff Member Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    12,598
    3,523
    Ratings:
    +6,802 / 122
    The hit on JWH at the end, can you imagine if that was by Matai or Luke O'Donnell, probably sent off and rubbed out for yonks. The officials froze in the finals spotlight, but what is the excuse ogf the match review committee? Pathetic.
     
  7. mickqld

    mickqld Sack Greenslime 2016 Tipping Competitor

    7,020
    2,671
    Gold Coast
    Ratings:
    +3,755 / 57
    Yeah no surprise there. It was only a hit twice as bad as what King did. **** the NRL I ****en hate them and hope their darling teams ( Tigers Dragqueens ) get beaten.
     
  8. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    we should have fought King's charge.  If we lose he serves it in the trials anyway. 
     
  9. swoop

    swoop Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    3,498
    637
    Ratings:
    +1,203 / 16
    That was no different to Crocker's hit on B Stewart a few year ago. If it were a regular game both would have imo been charged. Once the finals begin it's a free for all.
     
  10. mickqld

    mickqld Sack Greenslime 2016 Tipping Competitor

    7,020
    2,671
    Gold Coast
    Ratings:
    +3,755 / 57
    Unless its Manly where choc gets charged for leaning his knee into a guys legs. They have to be ****en' kidding dont they. This is just targetted bull**** from the NRL because we have had the nerve to speak out about how ****ed the refereeing has been.
     
  11. Ryan

    Ryan Well-Known Member

    14,914
    2,686
    Ratings:
    +6,122 / 287
    I thought it would have been a simple decision. That was my original thoughts. I guess the powers that be are in holiday mode.....still.
     
  12. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,418
    Ratings:
    +3,625 / 132
    Rules did change sue to that hit on Stewart
     
  13. Brissie Kid

    Brissie Kid Well-Known Member

    2,691
    743
    Ratings:
    +829 / 10
    Sorry Swoop - I gotta disagree with that.

    In the Crocker-Stewart case the tackler was moving toward a ball carrier who hadn't even yet caught the ball and was not able to set himself to protect himself from Crocker. The onus was entirely on the tackler not to hit Stewart in the head.

    In the JWH tackle, the defender actually propped and stood still and sets himself as the ball-carrier comes running into him. It was JWH who decided to lower his body and thus  ultimately ended up being tackled in the head because of his own actions. JWH could have even stepped to avoid that tackle and/or at least lessen the collision - but he didn't.
     

Share This Page