NRL - Nothing wrong with the Garrick Tackle

[The Royal Soup]

Gronks

 

[sheridanstand78]

NRL, you have a duty of care and yet again you failed miserably!!

 

[nightster]

He put Garrick in a dangerous position whether or not by accident .... bet responsibly

 

[cc eagle]

So what's the difference between tackling a player who's about to kick, you're allowed to tackle him, but not if he's in the air or you're putting him a dangerous position

 

[The Who]

Wow. Even I didn't imagine Annusly could be so stupid.
So it's open slather now. Anytime a player is off his feet (unless it's catching a kick) it's fair game to hit him. Beauty. Can't wait to watch the uproar when a non-Manly player is "tackled" this way.

 

[Top End Eagle]

Mitchell Moses on triple m just said that's a penalty any day of the week. If he's in the air kicking the ball and someone hits him it's an automatic penalty, same as hitting a kickers legs as they attempt a drop goal.

 

[pt73]

View attachment 24731
He put Garrick in a dangerous position whether or not by accident .... bet responsibly

Brent Read in Triple M said Anussly claimed it would have been a penalty if Reubs had landed on his head.

So it’s only a penalty if he gets seriously injured ?

As I said in another thread, any claim that the NRL has that they’re concerned about player safety is just bunch of hollow words so they look like they’re actually doing something.

 

[IQofalimabean]

That is more than a sin bin, and should be a number of weeks on the sideline. If the nrl have any credibility regarding player welfare they need to tweak the rules if thats not deemed to be dangerous.

 

[ManEagle]

I don't want to see any one hurt but would love to see the reaction if another player gets hit like that this weekend.
Any of the favoured few, imagine if it was Ponga.
Dare say Warriors would have been 12 men.

 

[Top End Eagle]

Brent Read in Triple M said Anussly claimed it would have been a penalty if Reubs had landed on his head.

So it’s only a penalty if he gets seriously injured ?

As I said in another thread, any claim that the NRL has that they’re concerned about player safety is just bunch of hollow words so they look like they’re actually doing something.

As I replied to Bozo on another thread if I drop someone from forty feet in months air and they land on their feet I'm putting them in a dangerous position.

If I invert an opposition player beyond the horizontal and then lower them back to the ground gently in the horizontal or even put them down on their bum the NRL apparently will only see one of these as a penalty.

NB dropping a player from forty feet is used as an hyperbolic feat, which I am sure most savvy readers would assume, but, but but we may have some NRL officials perusing the forum so the need to spell it out for them seemed necessary.

 

[Frogz]

Imagine if Matt Lodge did that to Tedesco or JWH on Adam Reynolds. Anusley and the NRL are fools

 

[eaglebuzz]

I remember Watmough got penalised in an Origin match for back slamming a QLD player in a tackle and that was nothing compared to this.

 

[MadMarcus]

Well at least something good might come of this. We might see the end of Annersley.

 

[ManEagle]

Anyone know how Garrick is ?
He was looking pretty crook after, whether he was ust winded or cracked a few ribs ?

 

[Thewestisbest]

A top notch idiot is Graeme.

He's in the world champion class of fcukwits.

 

[CRPSI eagle]

We mustn’t forget the NRL control and determine results.
End of story!

 

[HoldenV8]

If Garrick was a halfback in the motion of kicking, or if it was a catch on the full ... dangerous tackle every day of the week.

But NOT here?? Player welfare obviously doesn't mean as much to the NRL as what they like to claim.