Was that a Dangerous 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

maxta

First Grader
Premium Member
Forget the score or impact on the game - that's another debate.
Also we won a few funny calls tonight
But I want opinions on THAT tackle !!
I personally think the refs, commentators are confused by this rule.
Just because the ball "bounces" you can tackle a man in the air, that's 100% correct.
But if he/she are put in a dangerous position, it becomes a penalty instantly.
That why the NZ players stopped slso expecting this, it means if the ball "bounces"!you can karate kick or elbow a player in the air, as the rules for "dangerous " suddenly don't apply
Can see why Seibold spat about this call.
 
Forget the score or impact on the game - that's another debate.
Also we won a few funny calls tonight
But I want opinions on THAT tackle !!
I personally think the refs, commentators are confused by this rule.
Just because the ball "bounces" you can tackle a man in the air, that's 100% correct.
But if he/she are put in a dangerous position, it becomes a penalty instantly.
That why the NZ players stopped slso expecting this, it means if the ball "bounces"!you can karate kick or elbow a player in the air, as the rules for "dangerous " suddenly don't apply
Can see why Seibold spat about this call.

If you had halves that could time kicks (grubbers) well enough, that could be a tactic to wipe out opposition fullbacks. Because it happened to Garrick, the dog**** media brush over it. If it happens to Teddy, Edwards, Mitchell or someone, the whole NRL world would be up in arms.

I could see a very skillful team like the Panthers taking advantage of this now, and why not.

Absolutely a dangerous tackle, so let's see how the dumb dumbs at the NRL react.
 
If you had halves that could time kicks (grubbers) well enough, that could be a tactic to wipe out opposition fullbacks. Because it happened to Garrick, the dog**** media brush over it. If it happens to Teddy, Edwards, Mitchell or someone, the whole NRL world would be up in arms.

I could see a very skillful team like the Panthers taking advantage of this now, and why not.

Absolutely a dangerous tackle, so let's see how the dumb dumbs at the react.
Unfortunately your spot on mate
 
If a kicker gets touched while in the air, it’s a penalty. Doesn’t matter if they are a metre or 1 c/m in the air, they are deemed to be in a vulnerable position. It’s an appropriate rule in my view.

But somehow you can attack the legs of a player in Garrick’s situation, have him fall from a substantial height, and it’s not a penalty? ‘Yeah nah’. Garrick was in a vulnerable position, had his legs recklessly taken out, was sheer luck he didn’t land on his neck. Dangerous tackle every day of the week.
 
If you had halves that could time kicks (grubbers) well enough, that could be a tactic to wipe out opposition fullbacks. Because it happened to Garrick, the dog**** media brush over it. If it happens to Teddy, Edwards, Mitchell or someone, the whole NRL world would be up in arms.

I could see a very skillful team like the Panthers taking advantage of this now, and why not.

Absolutely a dangerous tackle, so let's see how the dumb dumbs at the NRL react.
I sense a rule change coming up after tonights pancake flip on Garrick. Funny how big incidents can change a game. Would of been an easy 2pts and we control the game, instead, next play they score from the scrum. Game over...
 
I think it was in 2017? Can't remember the year but I do remember when we played the Broncos. Tom Trbojevic jump for the ball and David Mead tackled him in the air. Tom injured his leg/ankle... but because the ball bounced nothing happened. We've been here before unfortunately
 
Last edited:
I sense a rule change coming up after tonights pancake flip on Garrick. Funny how big incidents can change a game. Would of been an easy 2pts and we control the game, instead, next play they score from the scrum. Game over...
Yep and it will happen deep in the off season just before 2024.
 
I think it was in 2017? Can't remember the year but I do remember when we played the Broncos and Tom Trbojevic jump for the ball and David Mead tackled him in the air and Tom injured his leg/ankle... but because the ball bounced nothing happened. We've been here before unfortunately
I remember that also, should have been changed then but crickets. Hopefully they change it before a player breaks their neck.
 
If the rule really is that you can attack a player trying to catch a ball - ie, all bets are off - just because it's bounced once, then it's a stupid rule and it needs to be changed. Otherwise, just kick the ball into the ground, wait for it to bounce and away you go. As for the ref's on-field explanation, "He landed on his back, so it wasn't dangerous"… FMD.
 
Doesn't matter Annesley will find a REASON as to why the Officials made the right call !
Agree with Eagle 1 if it was Teddy, Edwards or Mitchell we would never hear the end of it.
Just another shocking call that has gone against us this year ! and good to see Seibold finally fire up !

When he's talking to Annesley he should ask him this -
Under this ref Todd Smith in 3 games the set restarts are 14-3 against us !
2 losses - 1 to Penrith and now Warriors- a narrow win over the Tigers after he gave them 4 set restarts to our 0 and they almost beat us on the bell.
 
watched the Rorters Vs Eels and Teddy gets hit in the head when he falls in front of Sivo, teddy HIA Sivo on report fair dikum Teddy was 6 inches of the ground and falling fwd. Difference Teddy Rorters Garrick Manly. One team a chance and a favorite the other not liked by the NRL. Bias by officals you bettcha
 
That is foul play every day of the week. The defender attacks the feet of the guy trying to secure the ball, knocking him off his feet literally and landing on his back.

Garrick is lame as a result, a knock on is called and they get ahead when we should have had the chance to be 2 up with 6 to play!
 
I didn’t have a problem with it to be honest. Whilst it looked dangerous, the rules are the rules and once the ball bounced it was anything goes. I personally feel it didn’t cause Garrick to lose the ball, and that was his doing to try and get the penalty from in front

What I did have a problem with was the Warriors first try (Harris never grounded the ball) and Garrick’s first no try where it certainly looked like he grounded the ball first. On top of that, we had just about every penalty and six again call go against us, but that is to be expected with a team as poor as ours is now. That and having that idiot redhead referee in charge
 
I’ve still not let the Turbo incident in Brisbane go which cost us that win! I was at that game and could not believe what I saw. Tonight just as bad. Although I thought Garrick flipped the ball out to draw the penalty. It’s arguably the dumbest rule in the game. Seriously how the f$@@ is that not a penalty. Oh that’s right he landed on his back instead of his neck. Total crock! Legs at least horizontal or beyond. Min penalty and lucky not to be binned! Do t care what anyone says tonight, we were shafted by the officials from the outset.
 
I didn’t have a problem with it to be honest. Whilst it looked dangerous, the rules are the rules and once the ball bounced it was anything goes. I personally feel it didn’t cause Garrick to lose the ball, and that was his doing to try and get the penalty from in front

What I did have a problem with was the Warriors first try (Harris never grounded the ball) and Garrick’s first no try where it certainly looked like he grounded the ball first. On top of that, we had just about every penalty and six again call go against us, but that is to be expected with a team as poor as ours is now. That and having that idiot redhead referee in charge
I agree re the rules. I think the issue is more with the fact it’s ridiculous and puts players very easily into unsafe positions (like Reubs) yet they consider it fair game.
 
Team P W L PD Pts
10 9 1 124 20
10 8 2 81 18
10 7 3 70 16
10 7 3 69 16
11 7 4 59 14
10 6 4 -10 14
11 6 5 107 12
11 6 5 -9 12
10 5 5 -56 12
11 5 5 30 11
10 4 6 15 10
11 5 6 -12 10
11 4 6 -7 9
10 3 7 -103 8
10 2 8 -81 6
10 2 8 -91 6
10 1 9 -186 4
Back
Top Bottom