Annesley's weakly excuses presser - 2023 edition!

[mickqld]

Wonder what lame whitewash the Analcyst will come up with this week. Interesting that Manly has the most amount of successful captains challenges of all teams. NO FUKING WONDER WHEN WE COP WEEK AFTER WEEK OF INCESSANT CORRUPT WHISTLE/BUNKER FUKWIT CLOWN DOGSH*T CALLS.

 

[SeaEagle21]

Wonder what lame whitewash the Analcyst will come up with this week. Interesting that Manly has the most amount of successful captains challenges of all teams. NO FUKING WONDER WHEN WE COP WEEK AFTER WEEK OF INCESSANT CORRUPT WHISTLE/BUNKER FUKWIT CLOWN DOGSH*T CALLS.

He’ll just hide behind the “rule says …. Blah blah blah”

Watching the replay of the incident all the Warriors players were concerned for Garrick the way he landed…. Didn’t look good live, replay when i was seeing red and doesn’t look any better almost 2 hrs later. Absolute howler

 

[SeaEagle21]

Yep pretty much what i expected from that moron.

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

Wonder what lame whitewash the Analcyst will come up with this week. Interesting that Manly has the most amount of successful captains challenges of all teams. NO FUKING WONDER WHEN WE COP WEEK AFTER WEEK OF INCESSANT CORRUPT WHISTLE/BUNKER FUKWIT CLOWN DOGSH*T CALLS.

The analcyst.

Reminds me of this bloke, the ‘analrapist’:

 

[mickqld]

View attachment 24732

Yep pretty much what i expected from that moron.

So protecting player welfare means sh*t all because that cu*t hides behind a fuking joke rulebook. Garrick was millimetres from landing on his head and ended up in a dangerous position because of the tackle on his legs. A clear dangerous contact. This fukwit ars*clown can go fuk himself. The most gutless piece of sh*t who hides behind bullsht excuses and a pathetic rulebook to cover his pathetic lame ar*e.

 

[MadMarcus]

View attachment 24732

Yep pretty much what i expected from that moron.

Then I imagine he would have no problem putting himself in Garrick’s position and letting a player tackle him in the same way to demonstrate it is not dangerous?

 

[madmax]

Even if he didn't land on his head he could have fractured his back, whiplashed his neck. It's now open slather to kick & tackle a player mid air when the ball bounces. What a joke the NRL is regarding player welfare. I hope Newton & the Players Association have something to say about it.

 

[The '47ers]

NRL powerbrokers set to review Knights’ eighth tackle try in win over Rabbitohs

NRL powerbrokers set to review Knights’ eighth tackle try in win over Rabbitohs

www.foxsports.com.au

I'm sure it'll be something like "most Rugby league fans can't count to six, so you can't expect the referees too either"

 

[mave]

Does Sutton ever tire of fking things up?

 

[XV-1]

There was nothing wrong with the tackle legally. He landed on his back, so no penalty - very simple really. Yes, if he went past the horizontal or onto his shoulder/ neck - completely different discussion but it was a pure accident and luckily Garrick was not injured. He dropped the ball and gave possession back to the Warriors - plain and simple.

Are we now going to penalise a hard tuff tackle around the shoulders as it's close to the neck? NO

Seriously, we need to take a chill pill and move on.

If we hadn't lost, this would not be discuused by anyone here on Silvertails.

 

[madmax]

There was nothing wrong with the tackle legally. He landed on his back, so no penalty - very simple really. Yes, if he went past the horizontal or onto his shoulder/ neck - completely different discussion but it was a pure accident and luckily Garrick was not injured. He dropped the ball and gave possession back to the Warriors - plain and simple.

Are we now going to penalise a hard tuff tackle around the shoulders as it's close to the neck? NO

Seriously, we need to take a chill pill and move on.

If we hadn't lost, this would not be discuused by anyone here on Silvertails.

Garrick was injured! He couldn't run after that tackle & looks like he's out for next weeks game.....you seriously think he wasn't in a dangerous position? He could have fractured his back, snapped his shoulder......If he was catching a bomb & it happened it would be a penalty & on report for dangerous tackle. I don't give a fu<k about the rules. It was dangerous!

 

[XV-1]

Garrick was injured! He couldn't run after that tackle & looks like he's out for next weeks game.....you seriously think he wasn't in a dangerous position? He could have fractured his back, snapped his shoulder......If he was catching a bomb & it happened it would be a penalty & on report for dangerous tackle. I don't give a fu<k about the rules. It was dangerous!

It's a contact sport man. Injuries happen.
Shame on Garrick for being selfish for staying on and losing the game for us by not being able tackle the 2nd rower after Arthurs completely missed his tackle.

 

[madmax]

It's a contact sport man. Injuries happen.
Shame on Garrick for being selfish for staying on and losing the game for us by not being able tackle the 2nd rower after Arthurs completely missed his tackle.

Wow lololol.........seems he has bigger balls than you if he stayed on?

 

[XV-1]

Wow lololol.........seems he has bigger balls than you if he stayed on?

If he was injured he should have come off. Simple as that.

What are the odds he plays next weekend? 100%

 

[Eagle 1]

Does Sutton ever tire of fking things up?

Or refing our matches, and then is the bunker clown in the Warriors game. If we get him again..mmm .. and I thought Cumstains was bad..

 

[The Who]

Today's excuse-athon will be a marathon. Hope those bothering to listen ensure they are hydrated.

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

Ms Anne Sley was an uninspiring referee and an uninspiring politician.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Now that his big boss, ‘Slick’ V’Landys has come out and said they would look at the rules re: the Garrick ‘takeout’, it will be vaguely interesting to see if Annesley has modified his stance since Saturday.

 

[Scorpio]

Well there you go:

“I took a view that there was no breach of the rule in this case… this is a subjective matter which the referee and the bunker took a view on and decided that there was no degree of lack of care exerted by Nicoll-Klokstad,” Annesley said during his weekly football briefing.

“Under the existing rules, it’s a matter for the referees to determine whether any other rules had been breached or not.

“’Was there any lack of care taken by Nicoll-Klokstad? I don’t think there was, but that’s my subjective view.

“Injury alone is not a determination of whether the rule has been breached or not, players get injured in our game in all sorts of situations.”

Annesley backs Garrick tackle call as NRL considers rule change

The NRL will consider changing the mid-air tackle rule after Friday night’s incident involving Sea Eagles fullback Rueben Garrick and Warriors fullback Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad.

www.nrl.com