The Oates Incident....stop or play on?

  • 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.

The Oates Incident

  • Play on

    Votes: 44 71.0%

  • Stop

    Votes: 18 29.0%
  • Total voters
    62
Chip and Chase said:
Play on for sure, until the next stoppage in play. The last thing we need is more areas where the morons in pick can use their poorly developed senses of discretion.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of your posts feathered friend but not this time .
Duty of care.......
Players welfare comes first
When a player looks critical it is against the duty of care to look away and follow the play .
The play should stop immediately to attend to the players critical needs .
The game of Life is bigger than any ball game .
The ref was right to stop the play and focus on the seriousness of Oates condition .
Andrew Johns agreed that the refs acted rightly and responsibly and so do I
 
Play on...stopping the play isnt going to make the trainer or doctor get on the field quicker....ZTC spoke about it this morning on the BSB...play on till a tackle is completed...stop the game if it's deemed serious enough then.
 
sheridanstand78 said:
I am sure if that was 2 Penrith or other players down against the Donkeys it would have been play on!!
Click to expand...
Had it been the reverse situation, I am sure Bennett would have had his say at the after match press conference. I still think that as the action had moved away from the injured players, the play could have been completed, injuries attended to & then a review to validate or cancel the resulting try. It's the inconsistency of the rule interpretation that is in question.
 
Killer03 said:
The incident with Oates on Friday night where he was injured and thePanthers were away......I was watching the Sunday Footy Show and noticed opinion is divided. Fittlers attitude was play on....the play has no bearing on the medics getting to him. Joeys was 'nup stop'.

My mind immediately turned to how this can be exploited....and it will. That's just what players and coaches do.

So the question is for that incident play on or stop? Personally I say play on, as in this incident I agree with Fittler. The injured player is away from play, and the medics still get to the player in time.
Click to expand...
If it involves the Roosters or Penrith, you can count on a healthy dose of bias commentary from Fittler. Whilst I believe it should have been play on & a review carried out after injury treatment, the real problem is giving a referee discretion to halt play or allow play to continue. Can you imagine the outcry if that had been the potential winning try in a grandfinal & it was pulled up?
 
Where was the duty of care when Tommy got injured against Brisbane earlier this year? In that instance he dropped the ball, they picked it up and scored.....play was allowed to go on.

Why the change all of a sudden? Because it didn't favour Brisbane in Brisbane?
 
I have to say correct call. Maybe before the Alex Mc Kinnon incident I would've sided with play on call. But there are times when everyone knows it's really bad, and you have to stop play immediately.
 
So now some people expect refs to be medical experts!
Play on, if the action has moved from the injured player.
Trainers are on the field most of the game so they'll get to the injured player and access the seriousness.
Refs are there to control the football.
 
Considering the ball cleared the area very quickly play on is the call. always has been. The player woulld have got medical treatment as quickly either way. Play on changes nothing for player welfare in this incident.

Players go down all the time and teams regroup with 12 all the time.plenty of concussions, plenty of headknocks. There is no difference. It looked bad, sounded worse, i get that but duty of care was not at stake

If they turned the ball back inside and play was going to put oates in danger stop the clock , always has been

Poor call but because a player was injured they hide between duty of care as they dont need any more criticism
 
HoldenV8 said:
Where was the duty of care when Tommy got injured against Brisbane earlier this year? In that instance he dropped the ball, they picked it up and scored.....play was allowed to go on.

Why the change all of a sudden? Because it didn't favour Brisbane in Brisbane?
Click to expand...
The difference between the two incidents was the nature of the contact. One was a leg injury, the other a hard, and what looked to be very serious, head collision. In my opinion the referee makes the right decision in this instance.
 
TokyoEagle said:
The difference between the two incidents was the nature of the contact. One was a leg injury, the other a hard, and what looked to be very serious, head collision. In my opinion the referee makes the right decision in this instance.
Click to expand...

The point is there should be a duty of care and both incidents warranted play being stopped. However, it was only stopped once.
 
He brings the ball back hard, is a known try scorer, he's tall so he can be another target like Saab, two tall timbers so the halves have more options to kick to. He could cover in the backrow if needed. But he needs to come at the right price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 876 (members: 15, guests: 861)

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
7 6 1 99 14
7 6 1 54 14
7 5 2 36 12
8 5 2 39 11
8 5 3 64 10
7 4 3 49 10
8 4 4 73 8
7 3 4 17 8
8 4 4 -14 8
8 4 4 -16 8
8 4 4 -60 8
8 3 4 17 7
8 3 5 -25 6
7 2 5 -55 6
8 3 5 -55 6
7 1 6 -87 4
7 1 6 -136 4

Online statistics

Members online
15
Guests online
861
Total visitors
876
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Latest posts

Newest members

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom