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
danny-boy said:
The tackle was not legal in the current rule book.

YES you can tackle a player in the air after the ball has bounced but you CANNOT put the player in a DANGEROUS position!!!

Why the **** is that so hard to understand for everybody that is not against the decision?????
Click to expand...
The player did not land in dangerous position . He landed on his back and not on his head
The same as players getting heavily dumped in legal tackles landing on their back
 
BOZO said:
The fact remains that the tackle was legal in the current rule book

The question to this thread should be
Should the rule for that tackle be changed ?
Click to expand...
No the rule does not state anything goes
It states you can be tackled in the air
If the tackle ends in a "dangerous ", then a penalty and further action can be taken.
In the rule book it also states you can tackle a player running with the ball, however if it's a "dangerous " tackle it is a penalty and what comes with it
The question is
Was it dangerous
From there it's up to rack individual who is not blind Freddy to decide
 
BOZO said:
The player did not land in dangerous position . He landed on his back and not on his head
The same as players getting heavily dumped in legal tackles landing on their back
Click to expand...
Yes and you can tackle round the legs also, but that does not mean a cannonball tackle is safe - work out the difference Bozo my mate 😎
 
maxta said:
No the rule does not state anything goes
It states you can be tackled in the air
If the tackle ends in a "dangerous ", then a penalty and further action can be taken.
In the rule book it also states you can tackle a player running with the ball, however if it's a "dangerous " tackle it is a penalty and what comes with it
The question is
Was it dangerous
From there it's up to rack individual who is not blind Freddy to decide
Click to expand...
Listen Maxstar Mr Singing Sensation and Australia has got talent
You are right the rule does not state anything goes
The tackle was not deemed dangerous
The player did not land in dangerous position . He landed on his back and not on his head
The same as players getting heavily dumped in legal tackles landing on their back
 
Eagle 1 said:
Yep, the carrot top whistle clown was the deciding factor again. That's 2 stich ups in a row now, on top of Suttons 3 missed knock ons that were missed in the Penrith game. All game changing moments in the game. Jeez...and i thought Cummins was bad.
Click to expand...
Yep, 2 stitch-ups in a row...Sutton's missed knock-ons last week and who was in the bunker last night? It was Sutton...say no more
 
lsz said:
In a game where so many of the rules are open to interpretation I cannot believe they do not have the flexibility in a situation like that
Click to expand...
I think the trouble is that there is too much flexability in interpretation .... Bet Responsibly
 
BOZO said:
Listen Maxstar Mr Singing Sensation and Australia has got talent
You are right the rule does not state anything goes
The tackle was not deemed dangerous
The player did not land in dangerous position . He landed on his back and not on his head
The same as players getting heavily dumped in legal tackles landing on their back
Click to expand...
My man Bozo, just 1 thing....
And I agree in many ways
Tackle in air after bounce = tick
Lands on back - Agreed = tick
From 4 foot in the air = dangerous tackle
I don't think the bloke was out to break Garricks neck, but easily could have from that height, making it an easy "dangerous tackle" = penalty
 
BOZO said:
The player did not land in dangerous position . He landed on his back and not on his head
The same as players getting heavily dumped in legal tackles landing on their back
Click to expand...
Come off it Bozo, if I dropped you from forty feet and you landed on your feet I would still have put you in a dangerous position, Yes? .....if I inverted you beyond the horizontal but then put you down on your feet without dropping you at all the NRL would only penalise one of these tackles.😡
 
100% a dangerous tackle and probably deserves at least a 1 game suspension. And sadly for Reuben it happened to him after he missed that poor shot at a penalty goal shortly before
 
BOZO said:
Listen Maxstar Mr Singing Sensation and Australia has got talent
You are right the rule does not state anything goes
The tackle was not deemed dangerous
The player did not land in dangerous position . He landed on his back and not on his head
The same as players getting heavily dumped in legal tackles landing on their back
Click to expand...

Question is, why did Garrick let go of the ball after he landed?
He was certainly not concussed and there was not a hand laid on him.

It is his job as a fullback/winger to hold onto those balls.
 
Analcyst with his pathetic spineless statement has now given a greenlight to open season on players jumping up to take a bouncing ball. Do anything you can to maime and upend them. Garrick's problem is he didn't land head first and end in a wheel chair according to that fukwit gimp.
 
If landing on the back is ok, is the suplex now considered ok

what i find hard to understand though, considering the injury and the fact he didnt drop it on impact, was why he wasnt given more consideration about the lost ball

the ref could have gone nah, play the ball, clearly injured and not a lost ball. Time out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 924 (members: 27, guests: 897)

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
8 7 1 109 16
8 7 1 56 16
8 6 2 66 14
8 5 3 51 12
9 5 3 37 11
9 5 4 95 10
9 5 4 42 10
8 4 4 25 10
9 5 4 -14 10
9 4 5 -16 8
9 4 5 -19 8
8 3 5 -55 8
9 4 5 -70 8
9 3 5 11 7
8 2 6 -63 6
8 1 7 -89 4
8 1 7 -166 4

Online statistics

Members online
27
Guests online
897
Total visitors
924
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Latest posts

Newest members

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom