Turbo's fractured eye socket...

[1969]

MANLY fullback Tom Trbojevic has finished a nightmare season with a suspected fractured eye socket.
Trbojevic who has been one of the few shining lights for the club in a season which has seen them come close to the wooden spoon, copped a knee to the eye from Broncos forward Joseph Ofahengaue in the first half.

It was ruled accidental and no penalty was given despite some protestations from Manly players.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...t/news-story/5fa04352afa6501a69e29bf42f70e343

 

[Sea Eagle 4 Life]

Broncos players = protected species.
Manly player committing same offence = 4 weeks suspension.

 

[mickqld]

"Nothing to see here move on" said Trog Turdface.

 

[Nice Beaver]

I really don't understand this at all. So what if its deemed "an accident". He still kneed an opponent in the head. Surely its graded as careless? Why is this not careless? If something looks like an accident, you get off? Isn't that why we have a grading scale? He still hit him in the head?

Come on mate.

In the most brutal contact team sport in the world, you want to suspend blokes for every accidental contact to the head?

We'll need squads of 50 to field teams every round!

 

[ManEagle]

Regardless of the any other argument its, sad to hear our best and brightest endured this in the last game of this sad and sorry season I wish Turbo a speedy recovery, at least if there is any positive its the last game and not the first.

 

[Nice Beaver]

I think we've had this argument before. They have a rule which does exactly that. If it's "accidental" it's still careless, which is a penalty at least. Whether he gets suspended depends on the grading. I am simply saying "accidental" is not a defense, as is clearly pointed out in the rule book.

Gotcha.

Oztag.

 

[niccipops]

Get well Tommy. We certainly need you fit and firing for 2019.

 

[germaneagle]

What a pity he was great this year, like all we had to smile about then we get flogged by the Bronco's and he gets injured I think it happened to him last year up there I hope the Dragon's can knock them out this week.

 

[StuBoot]

I really don't understand this at all. So what if its deemed "an accident". He still kneed an opponent in the head. Surely its graded as careless? Why is this not careless? If something looks like an accident, you get off? Isn't that why we have a grading scale? He still hit him in the head?

Interesting, if an arm "accidently" slips up and hits the ball carrier in the head it's a penalty 90% of the time, sometimes on report, sometimes not.
We've seen defensive players slide in with their knees to try to stop a try and been penalised but this was deemed okay.

Yes, accidents happen and most are penalised yet he slid in low to prevent Tom scoring and got him in the head with his kness but not even a "be careful next time".

I'm with Terry on this one and thought the same when it happened.

 

[castle eagle]

Interesting, if an arm "accidently" slips up and hits the ball carrier in the head it's a penalty 90% of the time, sometimes on report, sometimes not.
We've seen defensive players slide in with their knees to try to stop a try and been penalised but this was deemed okay.

Yes, accidents happen and most are penalised yet he slid in low to prevent Tom scoring and got him in the head with his kness but not even a "be careful next time".

I'm with Terry on this one and thought the same when it happened.

i was going to start a thread on this issue earlier this week, whenever an attacking player slips just prior to being tackled and gets hit above the neck it has been a penalty all year. while not a deliberate act on the defenders behalf still a penalty at least.
i can't understand why there is a difference in this instance because the defender came in contact with the attackers head.
im not saying there should or shouldn't always be a penalty when this happens, i just hate the inconsistency.

i don't know why i expect any different from the nrl

 

[mave]

The only consistent thing when it comes to the NRL, is the complete lack of consistency.

 

[Shoe1]

The only consistent thing when it comes to the NRL, is the complete lack of consistency.

That’s it nailed it.

 

[fLIP]

How can anyone deem intent?

Incidents on a sporting field should be judged for the incident alone and no attempt to figure whether the outcome was intended should play a role.

Of course you would hope he didn't want to fracture TT's eye socket, but you dont lead into a tackle with your knees and there in lies the problem in the NRL. Forget intent, a fractured eye socket is a fractured eye socket.

There are going to be accidents, there are going to be head clashes for example that occur purly by accident; that's acceptable to dismiss, but when a player comes in with knees and they say 'well his intent wasn't to hurt the opposition', then you have to discard the players intentions because he was performing an action that very well could have hurt somebody and in this case did.

 

[mjb136]

The only consistent thing when it comes to the NRL, is the complete lack of consistency.

Yep, consistently inconsistent.

 

[SeaEagle21]

Yep, consistently inconsistent.

They are consistent, always screwing us over

 

[jbb/james]

No no no no no
Unfortunate - Yes
Penalty - No

As fans we cant blame the NRL for getting it wrong but then demand they get it further wrong. Accdental head clashes happen in every scrum, contact to head made penalty. Dead set

 

[bob dylan]

We move closer and closer everyday to compulsory headgear for all players.

 

[Tragic Eagle]

Intent plays no part in a careless tackle. I don't understand why a player has to hit the deck knees first near the head of a player on the ground. I'm tired of the administrators of this game that turn blind eyes to illegal tackles against Manly players. I remember Turbo being hurt badly up in Brisbane last year when he was tackled in the air which also led to a try. It was deemed okay because the ball bounced. What complete bull****. The purpose of the rules regarding careless tackles is to try to protect players but it seems the issue of protection is not as important when it comes to Manly players and ensuring the right result.

 

[The Who]

... turning a blind eye . . .
What a perfect metaphor TE.

 

[StuBoot]

No no no no no
Unfortunate - Yes
Penalty - No

As fans we cant blame the NRL for getting it wrong but then demand they get it further wrong. Accdental head clashes happen in every scrum, contact to head made penalty. Dead set

Yes, but this wasn't another head clash nor in a scrum.

1.Did knees hit him in the head? Yes
2. Was it an accident? Yes, I would hope so.
3. Was it careless? Yes
4. Was it reckless? Probably not
5. Was it intentional? No - See point 2
6. Was he trying to make a tackle? Umm, no, maybe.
7. Are you allowed to slide in feet or legs first to prevent a try being scored? No

1 + 3 + 7 = penalty everyday of the week ( except for any given Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday )

So if it's a penalty we get a free interchange not that it would've made any difference.

The NRL bang on about protecting players but then there are instances like this that go unchecked every week.
Yes it was an accident but plenty of accidents get penalised every week.
I'm not just talking with my Manly hat on either, these are the inconsistencies that make the fans frustrated and disillusioned.