Was that a Dangerous tackle ?

[Brookie Bob]

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 ?

Probably

 

[XV-1]

Maybe because he was in excruciating pain?

Montoya got knocked out, then slammed on his back but managed to hold onto the ball.

Garrick put his left arm out to help with the impact and he let go of the ball.

That and his piss poor goal kick to not put Manly ahead 24 - 22 changed the entire momentum of the match. He just gave the ball back to the Warriors.

 

[globaleagle]

lulz

If you read the nrl.con site about that tackle, you'll see just how much of a propaganda machine for the head office it's become.

'Oh I said I was sorry straight away and garrick said no worries'

Seibold said 'tally ho, we weren't good enough we understand that tackle.' (any references to dud ref calls not included)

They've been doing it for ages now, but their spin on things would make most ministers for propaganda proud.

Nicoll-Klokstad sorry after Garrick collision

Warriors fullback Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad says he immediately regretted the collision which resulted in Reuben Garrick suffering a back injury on Friday night.

www.nrl.com

 

[madmax]

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

Garrick has suffered a back & hip contusion.........& you say the tackle was OK. Seriously mate lolol. He could have fractured his back, damaged his shoulder, broken his arm, seriously damaged his elbow, but the tackle was OK according to you.

 

[Tragic Eagle]

A dangerous tackle any day of the week. The referee is a numbskull.

 

[Seagles68]

I wonder if the NRL would deem this tackle dangerous

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

I didn't see that coming and I was literally shocked.

 

[manly al]

Player airborne in a vulnerable position with legs being attacked , how can it not be interpreted as a dangerous type tackle warranting a penalty .
Not unlike a similar type tackle or incident involving Turbo against the Broncs in Brisbane a few seasons ago , no penalty then also and resulting in Turbo getting a leg injury and missing games .
Certainly hope that Reuben can recover and not miss any of the next couple of games

 

[Waz13]

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.

Agree re holding onto the ball. He was put in a dangerous position and should have been a penalty imo. I thought he let the pill go to possibly milk the penalty a bit.

 

[Seagles68]

Player airborne in a vulnerable position with legs being attacked , how can it not be interpreted as a dangerous type tackle warranting a penalty .
Not unlike a similar type tackle or incident involving Turbo against the Broncs in Brisbane a few seasons ago , no penalty then also and resulting in Turbo getting a leg injury and missing games .
Certainly hope that Reuben can recover and not miss any of the next couple of games

Yeah, someone posted earlier it was the fact that the bloke thrust his arm under his legs and almost flipped him that made it a dangerous tackle. Grabbing someone mid air and bringing him to the ground is a hell of a lot different to almost flipping them on to the neck or head. Just incredible to me that it wasn't called as putting someone in a dangerous position.

 

[Eagle 1]

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

When this happened, I was waiting for one of 3 things, 1 a send off, 2 a sin-bin and 3 at least a penalty....guess what..we got non of these, they got the ball and scored from the ensuing scrum, and they wonder why the fans are so cynical about refs these days.

 

[pt73]

From the SMH this morning:

‘A loophole in player safety’: V’landys to consider controversial rule change

ARL Commission chairman Peter V’landys has promised to explore the possibility of a rule change over the summer to avoid a repeat of the incident that left Reuben Garrick in a potentially dangerous position on Friday night.

Player safety has been at the forefront of V’landys’ thinking since taking over as chairman - most notably the high tackle crackdown which began at Magic Round a couple of years ago. He said the avenue to changing the rules will be explored after the season.

“Changing the rule will certainly be considered at the end of the year as part of our review into the season,” V’landys said.

“If there is a loophole in player safety, we’ll correct it. That’s our number one objective. What’s the difference between a bouncing ball or a high ball if you’re in the air? That’s what we’ll need to weigh up when we sit down and review it.”

The exploration of a potential rule change has been welcomed by Seibold, who took aim at the NRL following the loss that cost his side any hope of playing finals football this year.

 

[MadMarcus]

Montoya got knocked out, then slammed on his back but managed to hold onto the ball.

Garrick put his left arm out to help with the impact and he let go of the ball.

That and his piss poor goal kick to not put Manly ahead 24 - 22 changed the entire momentum of the match. He just gave the ball back to the Warriors.

Ok you’ve convinced me. I see the error of my ways.

Even knocked out people can hold on to the football so Reuben has no excuse. To think about self preservation when being dropped just shows he’s not willing to put his body on the line for the club. Soft.

The fact he missed that goal is also extremely relevant to the debate about the tackle, so thanks for bringing that into the discussion. I think a lot of people missed the connection.

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

From the SMH this morning:

‘A loophole in player safety’: V’landys to consider controversial rule change

ARL Commission chairman Peter V’landys has promised to explore the possibility of a rule change over the summer to avoid a repeat of the incident that left Reuben Garrick in a potentially dangerous position on Friday night.

Player safety has been at the forefront of V’landys’ thinking since taking over as chairman - most notably the high tackle crackdown which began at Magic Round a couple of years ago. He said the avenue to changing the rules will be explored after the season.

“Changing the rule will certainly be considered at the end of the year as part of our review into the season,” V’landys said.

“If there is a loophole in player safety, we’ll correct it. That’s our number one objective. What’s the difference between a bouncing ball or a high ball if you’re in the air? That’s what we’ll need to weigh up when we sit down and review it.”

The exploration of a potential rule change has been welcomed by Seibold, who took aim at the NRL following the loss that cost his side any hope of playing finals football this year.

This was on last night’s news as well.

It will be interesting to see any refereeing interpretations (in a similar incident) on this issue in the remaining rounds/finals, before season’s end.

 

[pt73]

This was on last night’s news as well.

It will be interesting to see any refereeing interpretations (in a similar incident) on this issue in the remaining rounds/finals, before season’s end.

It'll be interesting to see if they actually do anything or if this announcement is just a PR exercise.

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

Seriously, the amount of prevarication and spin from the NRL and "commentators" around this has been ridiculous. First, the ball bounced, so the normal rules protecting players in the air don't count. Okay - let's just accept that one and move on. Second, that because Rueben didn't land on his head or neck, it wasn't dangerous contact. It sure as hell looked dangerous to me. (And apparently to Peter V'landys.)

I've also heard people suggesting that the whole collision was somehow Rueben's fault because he "made the decision" to jump in the first place, and should have known that because the ball had bounced, he was therefore not entitled to any protection under NRL rules. Others have suggested that he jumped to "milk" a penalty, and that he released the ball when he slammed to the ground for the same reason, the implication being he got what he deserved.

Bull****. He jumped to get the ball. If he didn't jump, the ball would have sailed over his head. And he released the ball because he was hurt. I would invite anyone who disagrees to tuck a rugby league ball under one arm and throw themselves onto their backs from a great height (a porch or balcony should do it) to see what happens. Go on - do it for science.

 

[BOZO]

Garrick has suffered a back & hip contusion.........& you say the tackle was OK. Seriously mate lolol. He could have fractured his back, damaged his shoulder, broken his arm, seriously damaged his elbow, but the tackle was OK according to you.

According to me you ask feathered friend and According to me you will get

The fact is Any player can suffer any injury with any tackle
Its a toss of the coin on how a player falls and how other players fall on top of them with any given tackle
What do we do ? Do we change the rules and make it a tackle free game of touch ?

At the end of the day that bouncing ball catch Garrick tackle was ok in the current rule book and the ref ruled accordingly

In Conclusion
We could have easily won this game but we fell short just as we fell short all year in closing close games
If we a made all our tackles count through out the match , Took all the right options and minimised our own errors . We would have won the game. Because that is how good teams win close games

We will agree to disagree and we will both be pissed off once again that our beloved Manly club
will miss the finals once again

 

[Killer03]

I saw a facebook meme that the biggest winner on this....Craig Bellamy.

In typical Storm fashion they will see a loophole....and will 100% execute these dangerous plays.

Probably arguing with the ref while a player lies there with a broken neck (because that didn't happen at all.....did it Cameron Smith??)

 

[Bloke on the hill]

In my opinion the tackle was dangerous.
That being said, Garrick often acts injured to gain penalties, and he is a poor actor & that doesn't help his cause.

 

[eagle66]

The reason why Manly did not receive a penalty was because no one rushed in to create a melee of push and shove. If it was Penrith, Canberra, Souths or Parramatta, they ALL would have rushed in and forced the hand of the referee to blow a penalty.

 

[frank stokes]

No it was not a penalty… yes it was a dangerous or at least careless tackle that put him in a dangerous position…

They don’t let players off for lifting and driving just because they land on their back… for Christ’s sake, you can’t even breathe on a kicker now unless you wrap your arms around him and give him a cuddle…

The rules need to be reevaluated in regards to taking a players legs when he leaps for a bouncing ball… should of happened after Tom got hurt 5 years ago…