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

Eagle 1

First Grader
Hi Eagle 1
Yes it was a dangerous tackle & I hope he recovers ASAP.
However, certain NRL footballers frequently try to scam the ref for penalties. (Garrick is one of them)
Regardless on weather Garrick supposedly trys to fools the refs. It was a dangerous tackle every day of the week and should of been penalized.
Cheers...and go Manly on Sunday.
 

Bloke on the hill

Reserve Grader
Regardless on weather Garrick supposedly trys to fools the refs. It was a dangerous tackle every day of the week and should of been penalized.
Cheers...and go Manly on Sunday.
You must have misread my post - Ive written twice, that in my opinion it was a dangerous tackle.
 

Terry Zarsoff

First Grader
Was it a dangerous tackle? Not according to Andrew Webster at the SMH:

B438B750-616C-44CB-9802-4569DB992927.jpeg

I didn’t interpret Seibold’s comments as ‘abuse’. More like common sense. Seems like V’landys agrees with him and he certainly didn’t castigate Seibold’s comments.

Based on his opinion here, it looks like Webster has about as much common sense as Anne Sley, A. Johns and Billy Slater&Gordon.
 

maxta

First Grader
Premium Member
I'm so over this debate, as it's so obvious a penalty and they fu**ed up
They keep mixing up the story
We all know the rule is " you can tackle in the air" once the ball bounces
Now let's forget that and make it tackle 2 on a standard hit up....if the defender picks the attacker up 5 foot and throws them on their back the ref would stop the game, deem a penalty and give the defender 10m in the bin.
WHY - because it is called a "dangerous tackle'
 

SeaEagleRock8

Sea Eagle Lach
Premium Member
Tipping Member
On the general topic of the dangers in NRL, of which there are obviously many, interesting to see NAS's comments on the risk of CTE. Players are aware of the danger but most are in it simply to feed their families

“We have mortgages to pay, food to put on the table, kids and families to support and money is a massive factor for playing NRL.
“You ask any of the boys, if they won Lotto tomorrow, would they keep playing football? I think a lot of them would probably say no. “For me, rugby league is definitely an outlet.”

 

MissKate

Bencher
Premium Member
So if Rueben ended up in a wheelchair for the rest of his life would Webster still be happy that it was all good and the refs got it right.

He is missing the point completely, it was dangerous and the rules need to change, for the safety of the players
 

wombatgc

KT 623
Premium Member
Tipping Member
Was it a dangerous tackle? Not according to Andrew Webster at the SMH:

View attachment 24757
I didn’t interpret Seibold’s comments as ‘abuse’. More like common sense. Seems like V’landys agrees with him and he certainly didn’t castigate Seibold’s comments.

Based on his opinion here, it looks like Webster has about as much common sense as Anne Sley, A. Johns and Billy Slater&Gordon.
If Webster stopped after the first comma, he would’ve been spot-on. Nothing further needed.
 

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
24 19 5 243 44
24 17 7 186 40
24 16 8 275 38
24 16 8 222 38
24 15 9 89 36
24 14 10 96 34
24 13 10 113 33
24 12 12 -40 30
24 12 12 -127 30
24 11 13 -1 28
24 11 13 -126 28
24 10 14 -70 26
24 9 14 -62 25
24 8 16 -168 22
24 7 17 -155 20
24 7 17 -188 20
24 6 18 -287 18
Back
Top Bottom