Lawton and Send off rule

[mickqld]

When was the last time the NRL followed a precedent? Serious question.

Serious answer ... never if it affects the favoured few.

 

[HoldenV8]

Some of you people need to stop glue sniffing ... that was a send off all day every day .. the lack of any attempt to pull out of it sealed his fate ...

If that was a send off, then why wasn't Jake sent late in the game for dumping Tom Burgess on the back of his neck???

 

[MadMarcus]

Agree entirely

 

[MadMarcus]

If that was a send off, then why wasn't Jake sent late in the game for dumping Tom Burgess on the back of his neck???

Don’t give them ideas…

 

[HoldenV8]

The worst part of this for me was that I still believe it was a direct result of the inaction taken against Daniel Tupou last week and that whoever stuffed up first this weekend was always going to cop it big.

And thus, Lawton got sent and is now looking at a 4-5 week holiday.

Do you know the only difference between Lawton and Jake's tackles last night? Lawton's twisted. Both left their feet. Both dumped their opponent on the shoulder/neck. But by the time of Jake's tackle on Burgess, the refs had got the overcompensation out of their system.

 

[Woodsie]

If that was a send off, then why wasn't Jake sent late in the game for dumping Tom Burgess on the back of his neck???

Are the incidents related ... whatever the merits or otherwise of Jake's tackle doesn't change the severity of Lawton's.

As stated, his complete lack of attempts to pull out of the has sealed his fate .. and all appearances to go on with it, dropping on top of the player.

Only a good record will see him get less than 6 weeks .

 

[HoldenV8]

Are the incidents related ... whatever the merits or otherwise of Jake's tackle doesn't change the severity of Lawton's.

As stated, his complete lack of attempts to pull out of the has sealed his fate .. and all appearances to go on with it, dropping on top of the player.

Only a good record will see him get less than 6 weeks .

Jake didn't attempt to pull out of his tackle either. But the referees reaction to Jakes tackle was a complete 180 from his reaction to Lawton's.

I don't think either tackle was worthy of a send off. Maybe a penalty at best.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Or five if he contests it!!

https://www.facebook.com/222674735992/posts/10159749062495993

 

[TokyoEagle]

I think it was a send off. Not malicious but dangerous nonetheless, had he "dropped" him once he got past horizontal he may have been Ok, but to pivot over and drive through on the way down sealed his fate. Think about your reaction if it was Murray tackling Lawton in the same manner, how many here would be say, it's Ok Cameron just go to the bin for 10 and then come back.

There is some merit in looking at replacing a sent off player after 15-20 minute maybe, as an early send off in a game pretty much predetermines the outcome.

While I agree with your post in general, the first thing that came to mind when reading it was the thought that, if, as you say, it was Murray tackling Lawton, would it have been deemed to be a send off offence by the officials?

 

[Woodsie]

Jake didn't attempt to pull out of his tackle either. But the referees reaction to Jakes tackle was a complete 180 from his reaction to Lawton's.

I don't think either tackle was worthy of a send off. Maybe a penalty at best.

Same as my reaction .. I can't even remember Jake's ... but I think you will be sadly disappointed when you hear the judiciary's response to Lawton's.

 

[EaglesDontTweet]

This has always concerned me.
Firstly we all agree players must be protected from dangerous play.
No problem with an offending player being sent off and punished accordingly but there definitely is an issue with a team losing a player for most of the game in the current era and to a lesser extent every era.

So, for example, if Jimmy Just-Graded flukes a spot in a grand final side, gets over motivated, pile-drives someone in the first three minutes then gets sent, what do we have? Should a club and its fans be penalised for history because of one individuals rush of blood.

And do we want a situation where one arbitrary decision by a player followed by one potentially arbitrary decision by an official decides a game?

On the flip side you can't have Jimmy Just-Graded sent out to do a hit job on the oppositions best player.

I don't have the solution. Maybe a send off with non-fresh (if available) replacement after 15 mins and 6 point penalty awarded from in front with the decision to be confirmed by the bunker (taking some pressure off the referee)?

 

[HoldenV8]

Same as my reaction .. I can't even remember Jake's ... but I think you will be sadly disappointed when you hear the judiciary's response to Lawton's.

Basically Manly and Lawton are the ones who've unwittingly ended up being the fall guy for the complete stuff up last week over the Daniel Tupou clothesline.

I am disappointed in the size of the suspension, but given that its the NRL we're dealing with here ... I'm in no way surprised.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

The tackle was bad, not deliberate but I wasn't too surprised at the send off or the 4 weeks. Heavy penalties for lifting tackles are a no-brainer.

 

[Woodsie]

The tackle was bad, not deliberate but I wasn't too surprised at the send off or the 4 weeks. Heavy penalties for lifting tackles are a no-brainer.

Deserves 3 weeks just ffor the haircut

 

[WiseyEagle]

I wonder what Keith Urban thought about the send off?

 

[The Who]

Wow. Lawton not only loses the match for his club he is further punished for the next four or five weeks. All for what started out as a marvellous tackle but ended up containing too much enthusiasm.
This is a massive punishment for an accident.
Toupo attacked an opponent's head deliberately. He had plenty of warning his opposition winger was headed his way but opted to go high. It was deliberate. How he escaped by remaining on the field, then just a one-week suspension, can only be seen as favourable bias because he plays for Easts.
There is no logic to the treatments of the two incidents.
Let's now see how other accidental-tackles-that-go-wrong are adjudicated.

 

[HoldenV8]

100% correct.
The NRL doing their usual reactionary thing.

The first no-name player to commit an offence, especially on a star player, was always going to get nailed.

I think more to the point the first iffy incident that happened this weekend was always going to get nailed regardless who it was.

Unfortunately for us the two preceding games at Suncorp and Cbus were relatively clean. Lawton gave the first iffy incident and both he and Manly have paid for it.

 

[Karshy]

You're dreaming ..

How am I dreaming? The rules state verbatim:

Dangerous Throw (d) If, in any tackle of, or contact with, an opponent that player is so lifted that he is placed in a position where it is likely that the first part of his body to make contact with the ground will be his head or neck ("the dangerous position"), then that tackle or contact will be deemed to be a dangerous throw unless, with the exercise of reasonable care,

The first part of Murrays body to make contact with the ground was his shoulder.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

How am I dreaming? The rules state verbatim:

Dangerous Throw (d) If, in any tackle of, or contact with, an opponent that player is so lifted that he is placed in a position where it is likely that the first part of his body to make contact with the ground will be his head or neck ("the dangerous position"), then that tackle or contact will be deemed to be a dangerous throw unless, with the exercise of reasonable care,

The first part of Murrays body to make contact with the ground was his shoulder.

Read it again.
It doesn't say that 1st contact with the ground has to be head or neck. It says put in a position where that is likely. In Lawton's tackle it was certainly likely, happily for all concerned Murray didn't land on his neck but as I say, the rule you just quoted does not require that.

 

[Woodsie]

How am I dreaming? The rules state verbatim:

Dangerous Throw (d) If, in any tackle of, or contact with, an opponent that player is so lifted that he is placed in a position where it is likely that the first part of his body to make contact with the ground will be his head or neck ("the dangerous position"), then that tackle or contact will be deemed to be a dangerous throw unless, with the exercise of reasonable care,

The first part of Murrays body to make contact with the ground was his shoulder.

Explain to me the meaning of the word "likely" ...

And there was a glowing absence of a duty of care ..