Raiders still think they were robbed y matais try

[c_eagle]

So you want a penalty to be awarded every time there is contact with the head of the player in the tackle?

If we are to go by the letter of the law, that's the idea. Referee's use their discretion on the field with high tackles, that's their prerogative. BUT, when the play is sent up to the video, I believe it should be a black and white.

The same happens when a player in an offside position is within the 10 metre radius of a player catching the football. The referee can rule whether they are involved in the play or not while the NRL has instructed the video ref's to give a no try automatically.

 

[Stevie]

ya know what we should have Won the 97 Grand Final too , Thats Life get over , You think your right , we think your wrong, thats the way it goes . Also i never admitted it was high read it again

 

[Fluffy]

well then every tackle that looks high would have to be sent to the video ref
<span class='smallblacktext'>[ Edited Fri Apr 22 2005, 05:33PM ]</span>

 

[Stevie]

I also seem to recall Michael Witt copping a Punch in the Face in a tackle , which he was concussed for a bit , Funny Dont Remember a penalty from that one

The way C eagle wants everything Policed Games will go for 3 hrs now

and Dont get me started on Scrums ............ !doh:

 

[c_eagle]

[quote author='smallblacktext'>[ Edited Fri Apr 22 2005, 07:32PM ]</span>

 

[Dan]

then can you tell me why others werent pulled up then.

And what happens if I dive for the line and a player touches my head, is that head high?

 

[c_eagle]

then can you tell me why others werent pulled up then.

And what happens if I dive for the line and a player touches my head, is that head high?

What others?

According to my rule book, a player has given away a penalty,
"when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly."

Was Witt's tackle not careless? If it wasn't a Manly player, you guys would be able to see this rationally.

As for a player "touching" your head, get off it.

 

[Dan]

Mate that was definately not careless. It was an accident had the player not been falling witt wouldnt have hit his head. That is the fact. Watch it and look at the still six put up you can see the player is being dragged and is falling down when Witt hits him it wasn Intentional, It wasnt Reckless and it wasnt careless. No law was broken.

But what I do like is that you are debating the topic intelligently.

 

[Dan]

Oh and what others have a look at the hit Tyron Smith puts on Matai in 6 and a half minutes into the 2nd half. It was careless and someone reckless then come on. Sorry the ref was bad but he was consistent

 

[c_eagle]

Oh and what others have a look at the hit Tyron Smith puts on Matai in 6 and a half minutes into the 2nd half. It was careless and someone reckless then come on. Sorry the ref was bad but he was consistent

Did this decision go to the video? This is my argument.

 

[Dan]

no it didnt, and if it did nothing probably would have come of it because it was legal JUST LIKE WITT's tackle.

Your argument has changed. First you said it was high, now your saying it went to the video because it may have been high......

Are you now saying it wasnt high. I think we have successfully debated that it wasn't manly supporter or not t wa a legal tackle

 

[c_eagle]

no it didnt, and if it did nothing probably would have come of it because it was legal JUST LIKE WITT's tackle.

Your argument has changed. First you said it was high, now your saying it went to the video because it may have been high......

Are you now saying it wasnt high. I think we have successfully debated that it wasn't manly supporter or not t wa a legal tackle

I haven't changed my argument at all, I think you just have to go back and re-read what I've said. It's very hard for a referee to spot every single high tackle BUT, if the decision goes to the video, it's his responsibility to get it 100% accurate. He didn't in this case. Witt's tackle was careless.

 

[Dan]

How can you say he didnt. Tell me what was careless, reckless or intentional about it

 

[c_eagle]

How can you say he didnt. Tell me what was careless, reckless or intentional about it

I'm going to focus on this tackle from now on rather than the vague references to other incidents during the match that I haven't paid close attention to.

Since this is a matter of definition and semantics, careless is defined as being "Marked by or resulting from lack of forethought or thoroughness." I don't think he was thorough enough with his tackling style to complete a legal tackle. No Try - Penalty to the Raiders.

 

[Dan]

"Marked by or resulting from lack of forethought or thoroughness."

Stating a definition does not prove a point. I feel like I am debating in year 8 here. You must back your statement with an appropriate example where said player met the deinition.

Clearly Witt was aiming the player up, committed to the tackle, by which time it was too late to change angles/tactics after the player had slipped and leaned into the tackle. Initial contact is with the shoulder at any rate

 

[Dan]

You can not also reasonably have foresight of a player falling it is impossibl to predict the way that he will fall. Therefore Witt could not reasonably foresee that the player would fall that way or that far in that time.

Fair tackle, fair try

 

[Stevie]

no it didnt, and if it did nothing probably would have come of it because it was legal JUST LIKE WITT's tackle.

Your argument has changed. First you said it was high, now your saying it went to the video because it may have been high......

Are you now saying it wasnt high. I think we have successfully debated that it wasn't manly supporter or not t wa a legal tackle

In your Opinion , the Fact of the Matter is Games are won & lost on decisions week in and week out , how many decisions have gone against us in the past , we still scored 7 tries to 2 and were the better side on the day , regardless if it was a Manly player or not , I still believe the try should be awarded , as the incident had no direct involvement in the Try , the Ball was dropped prior to the tackle being made , C eagle you sound like Adam Gilchrist on his Decision to Walk , Maybe you should just Join the IRA and be a Martyr for the Cause ...... gimme a break

 

[c_eagle]

Err... Chill out mate, I'm only talking about this decision in isolation. I was ecstatic that the try was given and will take any piece of luck we get. Just because I'm thinking objectively doesn't mean I want Manly to lose or think we deserved to lose, we won by 22 anyway.

As for the ball being knocked on before the high tackle, IRRELIVENT. Can you knee someone in the head after they've knocked on the ball? Didn't think so.

You sound like the fanatical one, maybe you should strap yourself with explosives.

 

[byso]

Doosh. :lol:

 

[Fluffy]

the c doesnt happen to stand for canberra by any chance??