Was that a Dangerous tackle ?

[joeboy]

Like everything in this poorly governed and officiated game, you can’t make everything black or white. As much as they try to it will never work.

Was it technically illegal to the letter of the law? Not in so many words.
Does it come under the banner of dangerous contact? Absolutely
Does that constitute a penalty? Yes indeed.
Do I trust the current NRL setup and officialdom to ever get this right? No, no I don’t

You can’t clip a player in midair while you arnt watching causing dangerous contact and ignoring the duty of care without it being a penalty.

The rules shouldn’t need to spell that out specifically. Dangerous is dangerous

 

[eagleron]

I’ve still not let the Turbo incident in Brisbane go which cost us that win! I was at that game and could not believe what I saw. Tonight just as bad. Although I thought Garrick flipped the ball out to draw the penalty. It’s arguably the dumbest rule in the game. Seriously how the f$@@ is that not a penalty. Oh that’s right he landed on his back instead of his neck. Total crock! Legs at least horizontal or beyond. Min penalty and lucky not to be binned! Do t care what anyone says tonight, we were shafted by the officials from the outset.

Imo Annesley needs to be p1ssed off, he comes up with bullsh1t excuses every fkn Monday and I'm jack of him, what is his actual role? I think he's there as support for the current sh1thouse referees we've got, none of them would hold a job down in the real world

 

[Waz13]

Imo Annesley needs to be p1ssed off, he comes up with bullsh1t excuses every fkn Monday and I'm jack of him, what is his actual role? I think he's there as support for the current sh1thouse referees we've got, none of them would hold a job down in the real world

A s$&@house ref overseeing a bunch more s$&@house refs. That’s the NRL

 

[JenEagle]

Every fan of every club and every journo and anyone who has anything to do with the game knows it should have been a penalty except Graeme annesley. Just stupid.

If the penalty was blown no one would have said a thing. Same as when Jake T was sent to the bom against souths in 2019 in that semi. Should have just been a penalty.

 

[Eagle 1]

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.

Don't think he was acting somehow, if he was how come he couldn't get to the Warriors player who scored the winning try, if not for the back slam Garrick would've had him easily covered. Instead, all's we got was a limping Garrick.

 

[Eagle 1]

Imo Annesley needs to be p1ssed off, he comes up with bullsh1t excuses every fkn Monday and I'm jack of him, what is his actual role? I think he's there as support for the current sh1thouse referees we've got, none of them would hold a job down in the real world

100%, Also, why oh why do we always seem to get the same ole stich up refs that you know if it's a close game they're prone to give the opposition plenty of leg ups in the form of dubious 6again calls and relieving penalties. Just please, don't give us carrot head, or Sutton...at this point I'd take Cummins again..jeesh...

 

[rj90]

Annesley and the Warriors coach are the only 2 people I can find that think there was nothing wrong with the tackle (excluding Manly hating trolls on social media).

Fuk the NRL. Just accept Garrick was put in a dangerous position and a penalty was probably warranted. This circus of trying to justify it because the ball bounced is actually embarrassing. Shove your 'letter of the law' rhetoric up your arse. Annesley is an absolute fukwitt.

 

[maxta]

Manly Warringah Sea Eagles full-back Reuben Garrick has suffered a fractured back following Friday night's match against the Warriors in Auckland.

Scans have confirmed Garrick suffered a fractured transverse process in his back after landing heavily in the second half.

 

[JakeyB789]

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

I was very wrong, my apologies everyone. I think the beers and the frustration from losing got the better of me. Watching the incident again it was definitely dangerous contact and the resulting injury only proved it

Just like the Paseka injury against Sharks, that’s another player we’ve lost from dangerous play that didn’t even result in a penalty for us

 

[47MVEagle]

Manly Warringah Sea Eagles full-back Reuben Garrick has suffered a fractured back following Friday night's match against the Warriors in Auckland.

Scans have confirmed Garrick suffered a fractured transverse process in his back after landing heavily in the second half.

But still not a dangerous tackle according to the NRL & Annesley!

 

[Seagles68]

But still not a dangerous tackle according to the NRL & Annesley!

Saving face seems more important to Annesly than saving players from injury.

 

[HK_Eagle]

But still not a dangerous tackle according to the NRL & Annesley!

He pre-empted the possibility of an injury like this in his comments by mentioning a couple of times that injury is not always caused by illegal or dangerous tackles. What a slimey political $hit $tain.

 

[Spartan Eagle]

A tackle resulting in a fractured back is a safe tackle. Anusly should go smoke some more weed.

 

[Seagles68]

He pre-empted the possibility of an injury like this in his comments by mentioning a couple of times that injury is not always caused by illegal or dangerous tackles. What a slimey political $hit $tain.

Now there's an image HK ....... but on the money.

 

[StuBoot]

This "letter of the law" BS is what gets us all in a bother.

They don't referee everything according to the "letter of the law" or "how it is written" so for them to come out with that lame excuse is beyond ridiculous.

How often is a play the ball by the letter of the law?
Why let 60 things go because "we can't pull everything up, the game would go forever, blah,blah, blah..."

Yet one thing that every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks is a penalty is let go on a technicality.

They prove time and time again they have no feel for the game.

 

[rj90]

Will Annesley double down now that Garrick is injured?
Or will he accept it was dangerous contact?

 

[Leader of the Flock]

Will Annesley double down now that Garrick is injured?
Or will he accept it was dangerous contact?

My money is on “Double Down”

 

[jbb/james]

the very same tackle

If the ball hadnt bounced, dangerous tackle , on report, penalty, broken back 4- 6 weeks at judiciary
ball bounced, not dangerous, no report, no penalty, broken back get well card in the mail

forearm to head, dangerous tackle , on report, no injury , judiciary lottery
forearm bounces off ball before collecting head, dangerous tackle, on report, no injury, judiciary lottery

ref has discretionary powers not used last week
ref overuses discretionary powers this week to subside bad press

all about player welfare

 

[bob dylan]

Seriously what difference does the ball bouncing make. This stupidity shows what kind of numb skulls are involved in running the NRL.

They should make it so at least they get it right half the time. Therefore, if the ball bounces in a western or northerly direction it can be a penalty and if bounces easterly or to the south no penalty.

We could use a compass I got out of the box of my school shoes in 1977, they were Scouts from memory.

Faaark.

 

[Seagles68]

Seriously what difference does the ball bouncing make. This stupidity shows what kind of numb skulls are involved in running the NRL.

They should make it so at least they get it right half the time. Therefore, if the ball bounces in a western or northerly direction it can be a penalty and if bounces easterly or to the south no penalty.

We could use a compass I got out of the box of my school shoes in 1977, they were Scouts from memory.

Faaark.

Bata scouts with lion prints on the bottom?