Was that a Dangerous tackle ?

[XV-1]

Be interesting to see if he's sighted tomorrow

I am sure someone will sight him in NZ and say great hit.

But will he be cited by the NRL match review committee?

 

[wombatgc]

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

You can’t be serious mate! Not only did it look dangerous, it was potentially a serious spinal injury in the making. If Garrick ended up in a wheelchair, would you be happy to walk up to him and say bad luck mate, rules are rules, anything goes after that ball bounced right? Not a chance!
And I’m equally gobsmacked that you couldn’t see that the dangerous tackle was exactly why he lost the ball. To suggest he was playing for a penalty is madness.

 

[Mal Cochrane]

why wasnt he taken off, he couldnt run

 

[Michael Clare]

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.

The referee was out of his depth, overwhelmed by crowd, incompetent or biased ... just not sure which one it is!

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

Be interesting to see if he's sighted tomorrow

Garrick sighted? Or the (preposterously named) Worriers’ player cited?

 

[maxta]

Ok picture this.....2 identical tackles
Both are direct contact with the head

Tackle 1 ) Broken jaw so deemed dangerous - penalty - sent off and 22 week suspension
Tackle 2 ) Player is fine and plays the ball - so no action taken at all

Moral of the story, it's only dangerous when a player is injured, however as we all know, this is not the case, as "ANY HIGH TACKLE" is seen as "DANGEROUS" even when a player falls and is tackled high 30cm off the ground with a penalty the minimum result all day.

My point is - Yes it's fair to tackle a player in he air, but once it becomes a DANGEROUS tackle its a penalty and a DANGEROUS tackle comes down to the "interpretation of the ref , which has ALWAYS been part of the game and anyone who does not think that was Dangerous 100% would change their mind quickly, if dropped from that height in that awkward position it's a category 9/10 Dangerous.
And even if accidental, this scary situation, like an accidental offside, still MUST be a penalty.....

 

[The '47ers]

We hear it all the time "you put him in a dangerous position" whether accidentally or not. Penalty every day of the year, except yesterday!

 

[lsz]

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

 

[maxta]

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

They do mate - Dangerous tackle , yes you can tackle in the air after a ball "bounces", but it can still be classified "dangerous" and doesn't have to be intentional or aggressive, similar to an accidental offside call but far more obvious in the sense players welfare is deemed number 1 in the game today!

 

[Eagle 1]

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.

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.

 

[Eagle 1]

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

Your 1st paragraph is completely out of order mate, Garrick was put in a very dangerous position, flipped like a pancake onto his back, thank god it wasn't his head. Penalty every day, but not by this whistle clown apparently.

 

[NREagle]

According to the nrl's injury report it was just a "collision".....

Sea Eagles fullback Reuben Garrick meanwhile suffered a back injury in the dying stages of Friday night's loss to the Warriors, following a collision with opposite number Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad.

 

[Carl]

According to the nrl's injury report it was just a "collision".....

Sea Eagles fullback Reuben Garrick meanwhile suffered a back injury in the dying stages of Friday night's loss to the Warriors, following a collision with opposite number Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad.

Didn't you see his legs collide with the other guy's arm?

 

[Carl]

It's not the fall that hurts you; it's the sudden stop at the end.

 

[Golden Greek]

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

Yep agree and the bunker ref doesnt like us either Gerrard Sutton has f...ked us many times over

 

[Golden Greek]

Didn't you see his legs collide with the other guy's arm?

Specsavers can help you buddy

 

[court83]

my problem with the tackle was solely based on the intent…
He didn’t just tackle Garrick mid air, he intentionally hooked his legs and yanked them out from under him… there was only one intention in that action, which was to pull the legs out from under the guy so he landed dangerously… penalty every single day of the week

 

[lsz]

They do mate - Dangerous tackle , yes you can tackle in the air after a ball "bounces", but it can still be classified "dangerous" and doesn't have to be intentional or aggressive, similar to an accidental offside call but far more obvious in the sense players welfare is deemed number 1 in the game today!

Then how do they justify that decision? Bizarre

 

[BOZO]

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 ?

 

[danny-boy]

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 ?

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?????