Was that a Dangerous tackle ?

[BOZO]

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?????

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

 

[maxta]

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 ?

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

 

[maxta]

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

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 😎

 

[BOZO]

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

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

 

[BOZO]

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 😎

Love you my talented Manly brother

 

[ALinda]

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.

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

 

[Jethro]

From today's Telegraph:

NRL Round 25 news 2023: Anthony Seibold furious as Warriors win 29-22 over Manly

 

[nightster]

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

I think the trouble is that there is too much flexability in interpretation .... Bet Responsibly

 

[maxta]

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

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

 

[Top End Eagle]

Specsavers can help you buddy

A night course in the nuances of the English language and it's modalities may be a good help for you. Just make sure you show up for week three when they cover sarcasm and irony.

 

[Top End Eagle]

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

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.😡

 

[Ashton Davis]

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

 

[XV-1]

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

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.

 

[MadMarcus]

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.

Maybe because he was in excruciating pain?

 

[mickqld]

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.

 

[jbb/james]

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

 

[40 nil]

I wonder if the NRL would deem this tackle dangerous

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Once Was Brissie Kid]

Warriors were offside when they charged down the DCE kick.

 

[davohan123]

What did the footy show say about this , this morning

Bet nothing to see here.

 

[Brookie Bob]

Be interesting to see if he's sighted tomorrow

I'm more interested to know if the Warriors player is cited.

I'm sure that Reuben will be sighted - by somebody - maybe his family?