NRL - Nothing wrong with the Garrick Tackle

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
  • We have been getting regular requests for users who have been locked out of their accounts because they have changed email adresses over the lifetime of their accounts. Please make sure the email address under your account is your current and correct email address in order to avoid this in the future. You can set your email address at https://silvertails.net/account/account-details
  • Wwe are currently experience some server issues which I am working through and hoping to resolve soon, Please bare with me whilst I work through making some changes and possible intermittent outages.
  • Apologies all our server was runing rogue. I managed to get us back to a point from 2:45 today though there is an attachment issue i will fix shortly. Things should be smooth now though

The Royal Soup

First Grader
Gronks
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8741.jpeg
    IMG_8741.jpeg
    188.5 KB · Views: 30

The Who

Journey Man
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.
 

pt73

Bencher
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.
 

ManEagle

Just a Man and his Eagle
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.
 
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.
 

ManEagle

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

HoldenV8

Journey Man
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.
 

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
11 9 2 82 20
11 8 3 112 18
11 8 3 75 18
11 7 4 65 16
12 7 5 135 14
12 7 5 57 14
11 6 5 -9 14
11 6 5 -38 14
12 6 5 36 13
11 5 6 47 12
12 6 6 2 12
11 5 6 -88 12
12 5 6 -3 11
11 3 8 -89 8
11 3 8 -119 8
11 2 9 -95 6
11 2 9 -170 6
Back
Top Bottom