Was that a Dangerous tackle ?

[Eagledare2dream]

bring back Rambo Gibbs they'll be no legs left

 

[Jethro]

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.

In my opinion, the same player protection for a player jumping up into the air either catching or attempting to catch a ball from a kick needs to be applied to the current rule for catching balls from the bounce.

If the player is jumping VERTICALLY to catch the ball, he or she is protected.

The addition of the word 'VERTICALLY' would also alleviate Annesley's fears that it would also be applied to someone tackling those players carrying out or attempting to do one of those acrobatic try scoring events because those players are actually horizontal when diving for the try line.

 

[Rorz]

Forget the score or impact on the game - that's another debate.
Also we won a few funny calls tonight
But I want opinions on THAT tackle !!
I personally think the refs, commentators are confused by this rule.
Just because the ball "bounces" you can tackle a man in the air, that's 100% correct.
But if he/she are put in a dangerous position, it becomes a penalty instantly.
That why the NZ players stopped slso expecting this, it means if the ball "bounces"!you can karate kick or elbow a player in the air, as the rules for "dangerous " suddenly don't apply
Can see why Seibold spat about this call.

It’s quite apparent the rule is far more important than the player’s safety.
Just because the rule states this doesn’t necessarily make the rule right.
Hopefully common sense prevails and the rule is changed regardless if the ball bounces or not.Because a player might not end up as lucky as Rueben.

 

[HK_Eagle]

That to me is the big issue here. Reuben (with all due respect) in the NRLs eyes is a nobody.....so who cares? Some of the rubbish that gets spouted by rugby league pundits about duty of care etc.

We have tackles now where the runner falls in the last millisecond.....and basically his head hits the arm of the defender....who is just standing there.....I'm not sure what the defender did wrong....he hit him in the head!!!! Penalty....10 in the bin... must go!!

In this case? Play on....nothing to see? Wtf?

As you point out @HoldenV8 if this was one of the big boys....holy moly there would be hell to pay.

And imagine if one of those big boy darlings was ruled out next week from a crucial match for their team's final chances... Could you imagine the media stink that would be kicked up!

 

[Killer03]

And imagine if one of those big boy darlings was ruled out next week from a crucial match for their team's final chances... Could you imagine the media stink that would be kicked up!

Oh my god.....seriously the multiverse would collapse!

 

[maxta]

It’s quite apparent the rule is far more important than the player’s safety.
Just because the rule states this doesn’t necessarily make the rule right.
Hopefully common sense prevails and the rule is changed regardless if the ball bounces or not.Because a player might not end up as lucky as Rueben.

The rule "Thing" is where the officials are trying to hide behind
The rule actually states "you can tackle a player in the air" if the ball has bounced....but
The BIGGEST rule in the game for player safety and welfare is putting a player in a "DANGEROUS POSITION" and this rule is applied if -
On the ground
In the air
On the moon
At the local cafe

 

[maxta]

In my opinion, the same player protection for a player jumping up into the air either catching or attempting to catch a ball from a kick needs to be applied to the current rule for catching balls from the bounce.

If the player is jumping VERTICALLY to catch the ball, he or she is protected.

The addition of the word 'VERTICALLY' would also alleviate Annesley's fears that it would also be applied to someone tackling those players carrying out or attempting to do one of those acrobatic try scoring events because those players are actually horizontal when diving for the try line.

This "Loophole" is all a scam to cover up Terrible officiating.
Being put in a dangerous position is Rule 101 in Rugby League.
It's like saying the bloke could have Ninja kicked him in the head because the ball had bounced or maybe headbutted him in the air, because if the ball bounces the tackler can do what they want....but it has never been an "anything go's" rule and a dangerous tackle is dangerous wherever or however it happens and this WAS dangerous.
And tipping a bloke from 5 foot in the air 100% falls in this category without question or rule changes.

 

[Jethro]

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.

In my opinion, the same player protection for a player jumping up into the air either catching or attempting to catch a ball from a kick needs to be applied to the current rule for catching balls from the bounce.

If the player is jumping VERTICALLY to catch the ball, he or she is protected.

The addition of the word 'VERTICALLY' would also alleviate Annesley's fears that it would also be applied to someone tackling those players carrying out or attempting to do one of those acrobatic try scoring events because those players are actually horizontal when diving for the try line.

This "Loophole" is all a scam to cover up Terrible officiating.
Being put in a dangerous position is Rule 101 in Rugby League.
It's like saying the bloke could have Ninja kicked him in the head because the ball had bounced or maybe headbutted him in the air, because if the ball bounces the tackler can do what they want....but it has never been an "anything go's" rule and a dangerous tackle is dangerous wherever or however it happens and this WAS dangerous.
And tipping a bloke from 5 foot in the air 100% falls in this category without question or rule changes.

I totally agree with you @maxta regarding the dangerous position stance and that in my opinion, Reuben Garrick was put in a dangerous position.


Graham Annesley's view differs because in his subjective view, as the rules currently stand, no rules were broken.

According to the Mid-Air Tackle Rule, "It is illegal to tackle an opposing player attempting to field a kick on the full whilst the player is in mid-air.

The catcher must have returned to the ground before being tackled."

This wasn't from a kick on the full, it was from a bouncing ball so the Mid-Air Tackle Rule doesn't apply.

According to Annesley's subjective view:

"Reuben Garrick was not placed in a dangerous position. He lands on his back. Now there are players who get tackled and land on their back in a whole range of different situations or land awkwardly is probably a better way of saying it. You could land very heavily on your back by a good front on tackle and get driven backwards.

Players can get injured. Injury alone is not a determination of wether the rules have been breached or not. Players get injured in our game in all sorts of situations. Not that we want to see any of them injured, we don't. We want the game to be as safe as possible but they can get injured in legitimate tackles."

It was then put to him by a reporter that if Garrick had gone past the horizontal, which we hear a lot, would it have been a penalty?

Annesley's response was:

"Well it may have been, it may have been, but you have to look at the actions of the player who committed the tackle. If you look at lifting tackles generally, this was not a lifting tackle. There was no throw involved in this tackle. It was a player who jumped in the air to retrieve a ball that was bouncing. That is not a breach of the rules to make contact with him that put him off balance, but it wasn't lifting. There was no high tackle. There was no late contact. He wasn't early. He didn't get to him early before he had possession of the ball, so which rule has he breached?"


If the rule change that I put forward were put into place, a player would think twice before they did anything like Nicoll-Klokstad did to Reuben Garrick because there is no longer any grey area and the Ref's Whistle would be blown and a penalty would be awarded and the attacking player may find themself on report or time off or sent off.


If you missed Annesley's view of the matter, here are some links to the video:

Why Nicoll-Klokstad tackle wasn't a penalty

NRL head of football elite competitions Graham Annesley looks at the law that meant Warriors fullback Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad wasn't penalised for a mid-air tackle on Reuben Garrick

www.nrl.com

Annesley backs Garrick tackle call as NRL considers rule change

The NRL will consider changing the mid-air tackle rule after Friday night’s incident involving Sea Eagles fullback Rueben Garrick and Warriors fullback Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad.

www.nrl.com

 

[Bloke on the hill]

So you're inferring that the reason Garrick didn't get the penalty was because he often acts injured and the ref's are wise on this, even though in this case he clearly wasn't acting. Sorry BlokeOTH, I haven't noticed Garrick acting up to get penalties, and don't think Garrick is on the referees radar on milking penalties. On this, I'll have to agree to disagree.

No, I'm actually saying what I wrote.
Just watch him closely for it, as it's easy to spot (he's not a good actor) in fact he mainly does it for crusher tackles after turning his back (he turns his back into defenders frequently). Once he's achieved the penalty, he'll often take a quick tap & run himself, it's just an act that works for him.
For what it's worth, Gutherson pulls stunts like that to milk penalties for parra also.

 

[Tragic Eagle]

Dumb dumb and dumber. The rule doesn’t need changing. Hit a player in the air and it’s dangerous. It’s not rocket science.

 

[Eagle 1]

No, I'm actually saying what I wrote.
Just watch him closely for it, as it's easy to spot (he's not a good actor) in fact he mainly does it for crusher tackles after turning his back (he turns his back into defenders frequently). Once he's achieved the penalty, he'll often take a quick tap & run himself, it's just an act that works for him.
For what it's worth, Gutherson pulls stunts like that to milk penalties for parra also.

If what you say is true on Garrick, well I guess it's true of every player, they all do it. So I doubt Garrick would get any close scrutiny by the refs compared to any other player.

 

[Bloke on the hill]

If what you say is true on Garrick, well I guess it's true of every player, they all do it. So I doubt Garrick would get any close scrutiny by the refs compared to any other player.

Not all players do it, but some do. For a quick example, Greg Inglis used to dive to the ground head first to get leg lifting penalties.
Refs watch games back & talk to each other too!

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

Is the earth round?

The world being as it is, there will still be people who will tell you that it isn't.

 

[pt73]

No, I'm actually saying what I wrote.
Just watch him closely for it, as it's easy to spot (he's not a good actor) in fact he mainly does it for crusher tackles after turning his back (he turns his back into defenders frequently). Once he's achieved the penalty, he'll often take a quick tap & run himself, it's just an act that works for him.
For what it's worth, Gutherson pulls stunts like that to milk penalties for parra also.

Sivo used to do it many times a game and he has a neck circumference like a power pole.

 

[JenEagle]

The more I think about it the angrier I get.

If it is deemed legal it sounds even more ludicrous :

With six mins left score is 22 all so Dce attempts a field goal and it gets charged down by the warriors. As the ball bounces the warriors fullback legally takes out rueben Garrick's legs so he falls and breaks his back and therefore after he has hit the ground he lets the ball go. So the ref rules knock on manly and then the warriors get the ball and make a break and Garrick can’t chase to make a tackle as he has a broken back therefore making it easier for the warriors to score and win the game.

How does that make any sense at all.

 

[Eagle 1]

Not all players do it, but some do. For a quick example, Greg Inglis used to dive to the ground head first to get leg lifting penalties.
Refs watch games back & talk to each other too!

Big difference is, Garrick got dropped a lot higher than Inglis's somersault scams.

 

[tookey]

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

Big difference is, Garrick got dropped a lot higher than Inglis's somersault scams.

Speaking of the Squall, Billy Slater&Gordon was trying to defend the referee’s ruling, on Nein’s Sunday leaguefest. Not that you would expect anything otherwise from a player schooled in the traditional Melbourne-style of play.

It goes without saying that Andrew Johns backed him. Andrew has had a ‘weed on’ with Manly since he was shown the door in 2015.

Only Adolf Fittler disagreed with the ruling. Maybe because he lives on the Northern Beaches.

 

[Eagle 1]

Speaking of the Squall, Billy Slater&Gordon was trying to defend the referee’s ruling, on Nein’s Sunday leaguefest. Not that you would expect anything otherwise from a player schooled in the traditional Melbourne-style of play.

It goes without saying that Andrew Johns backed him. Andrew has had a ‘weed on’ with Manly since he was shown the door in 2015.

Only Adolf Fittler disagreed with the ruling. Maybe because he lives on the Northern Beaches.

Yep, the pancake flip in the air on Garrick would of got the tick of approval down South. Melb know no other way but to bend the rules to suit their twisted style of play. I really don't know about John's these days, one day he's on top of his game commentator wise, the next day he's flat on his back in a reginal Airport in Qld. Don't mind the ole Fittler tbh, took a lot of heat from the NRL press brigade, all brought on by his selection picks.

 

[Bloke on the hill]

Big difference is, Garrick got dropped a lot higher than Inglis's somersault scams.

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)