Actions speak louder than words - Is it corruption or favouritism ? To the NRL, please explain what's going on !!!

Odessa said:
Was talking to someone from the t NRL last night at a fundraiser they said internally the bunker is a very big problem and the amount of mistakes in the dragons Dogs game and they are trying to fix it and won't air the problems
Click to expand...
Externally too.... It's no secret... everyone on the planet knows about problem bunker
 
Last edited:
incontrol said:
Have a think about if a tiger made that same tackle in the same situation would the Tiger get away with no suspension and a fine...
Click to expand...
That’s my point. The Tigers ones have been text book hip drops. So yeah they got what they deserved.
I don’t really subscribe to the whole “the refs are against us” view. I think fans see what they want to and overlook what they want to. Klemmer should have gone to the bin last night and didn’t. Isn’t that in our favour when the argument here is we’re always shafted?
Don’t get me wrong, there’s always calls in games that go against us but that’s the same for all teams if you watch objectively. Conversely, and as per the Klemmer example, there’s calls that go in our favour too but many just want to talk about the dodgy ones.
We’re just a poor side pure n simple. That’s what’s holding us back as far as I’m concerned.
 
It's hard not to think there's more to this than meets the eye.

I try really hard to remain unbiased but I watch most games each weekend and there is a definite trend that the 'powerful' clubs seem to get away with more than the 'developing' clubs. We aren't the only ones who consistently get the raw end but I have friends who support other teams who can see it and comment regularly that the NRL hates us.

Unconscious bias from the refs and bunker in the heat of the moment? Maybe. But blatant bias from the judiciary is a big red flag and it is happening more and more. To quote Toovey "there's gotta be an investigation into this."
 
lathami said:
I don’t get all the backing of Holmes in the media yesterday and today. It’s just like a head high when another player tackles him low so the player drops causing the head high. It’s a accident I get it but it’s the head higher that is still responsible for not adjusting.
Same with the Holmes incident he got knocked into the hip drop/dangerous tackle. But Holmes chose to tackle papali around the waist instead of the legs leaving the hip drop as a option to happen with additional contact, in my view that comes under the reckless category.
Imagine that it was Feledy who did exactly the same tackle that Holmes did on say a Hynes, gee I wonder what would of happened!!!
NRL is a softcock joke, pathetic.
Also no charge for the shoulder charge, again pathetic.
Click to expand...
Shoulder charge should have been penalty and possibly even 10 in the bin.

But let's be fair; if we are cherry picking moments in games and relying on penalties to get us over the line, we don't really have control of the game to start with.

We are simply not good enough to compete against most teams and that is the common denominator. Not ref's.
 
GCfan said:
That’s my point. The Tigers ones have been text book hip drops. So yeah they got what they deserved.
I don’t really subscribe to the whole “the refs are against us” view. I think fans see what they want to and overlook what they want to. Klemmer should have gone to the bin last night and didn’t. Isn’t that in our favour when the argument here is we’re always shafted?
Don’t get me wrong, there’s always calls in games that go against us but that’s the same for all teams if you watch objectively. Conversely, and as per the Klemmer example, there’s calls that go in our favour too but many just want to talk about the dodgy ones.
We’re just a poor side pure n simple. That’s what’s holding us back as far as I’m concerned.
Click to expand...
Your point isn't even factually correct. Aiden Sezer's wasn't a hip drop (according to Annesley). He said the problem with Sezer's tackle was the locking of the legs, not any body weight on the legs. Somehow though, he gets a grade 3 Dangerous Contact with no injury to Curran.

As such, it shouldn't matter whether Val Holmes tackle was a classic hip drop (which I still think it is) it just depends how dangerous it is.

I would love someone to explain to me how Val Holmes landing on Papali'i's ankle with all his weight is a grade 1 when Sezer not putting any weight on Curran is a grade 3.

And, intent doesn't matter at all, which is another argument I've seen floating about for Val Holmes. Whether or not you intend it means nothing. I'd argue that no player intends it.
 
happy_tiger said:
Not to mention Galvin was offside with the 2nd try .....people need to watch WTs game without their black white and gold sunnies on .....
Click to expand...
Galvin was in front of the kicker but stayed back 10m and didn't get involved in the play when Bula leapt ,caught and scored .please don't make it harder on ourselves then necessary
 
Tiger_Pete said:
Tiger_Pete said:
Your point isn't even factually correct. Aiden Sezer's wasn't a hip drop (according to Annesley). He said the problem with Sezer's tackle was the locking of the legs, not any body weight on the legs. Somehow though, he gets a grade 3 Dangerous Contact with no injury to Curran.

As such, it shouldn't matter whether Val Holmes tackle was a classic hip drop (which I still think it is) it just depends how dangerous it is.

I would love someone to explain to me how Val Holmes landing on Papali'i's ankle with all his weight is a grade 1 when Sezer not putting any weight on Curran is a grade 3.

And, intent doesn't matter at all, which is another argument I've seen floating about for Val Holmes. Whether or not you intend it means nothing. I'd argue that no player intends it.
Click to expand...

Your point isn't even factually correct. Aiden Sezer's wasn't a hip drop (according to Annesley). He said the problem with Sezer's tackle was the locking of the legs, not any body weight on the legs. Somehow though, he gets a grade 3 Dangerous Contact with no injury to Curran.

As such, it shouldn't matter whether Val Holmes tackle was a classic hip drop (which I still think it is) it just depends how dangerous it is.

I would love someone to explain to me how Val Holmes landing on Papali'i's ankle with all his weight is a grade 1 when Sezer not putting any weight on Curran is a grade 3.

And, intent doesn't matter at all, which is another argument I've seen floating about for Val Holmes. Whether or not you intend it means nothing. I'd argue that no player intends it.
Click to expand...
I didn’t mention Sezer. I’m talking generally about the hip drop tackles that were charged in Galvin and Klemmer. Since you raise Sezer though, his suspension was off the back of carry over points from prior charges (as is Klemmer’s)
Holmes was an initial offence hence the fine.

I Don’t disagree with your argument around inconsistent gradings though and intent. I’d doubt any player goes into a tackle thinking “I’m gonna break this blokes ankle”

What I don’t agree with is blaming refereeing week in and week out which is kind of the point of this thread if I understand it. We need to be holding our footy team to account first n foremost (in my opinion)!which I don’t need agreement on btw. I respect others opinions I just see it a little differently.
 
Tiger_Pete said:
Your point isn't even factually correct. Aiden Sezer's wasn't a hip drop (according to Annesley). He said the problem with Sezer's tackle was the locking of the legs, not any body weight on the legs. Somehow though, he gets a grade 3 Dangerous Contact with no injury to Curran.

As such, it shouldn't matter whether Val Holmes tackle was a classic hip drop (which I still think it is) it just depends how dangerous it is.

I would love someone to explain to me how Val Holmes landing on Papali'i's ankle with all his weight is a grade 1 when Sezer not putting any weight on Curran is a grade 3.

And, intent doesn't matter at all, which is another argument I've seen floating about for Val Holmes. Whether or not you intend it means nothing. I'd argue that no player intends it.
Click to expand...
Another point Curran was able to return to play IPaps obviously badly injured probably out a few weeks .
The best example to show inequity is 2 weeks ago watch video of Papalii 's trip and same weekend Angus Crighton's trip on DWS . Crightons one worse and had DWS clutching at his ankle and limping ! Both listed as 1st offence
Our guy got 1 -2 weeks
Roosters guy got $1000 fine
Not as dramatic as the hip drops but clear cut and unexplainable by the Judiciary which is my point .Tigers treated more harshly !
 
GCfan said:
That’s my point. The Tigers ones have been text book hip drops. So yeah they got what they deserved.
I don’t really subscribe to the whole “the refs are against us” view. I think fans see what they want to and overlook what they want to. Klemmer should have gone to the bin last night and didn’t. Isn’t that in our favour when the argument here is we’re always shafted?
Don’t get me wrong, there’s always calls in games that go against us but that’s the same for all teams if you watch objectively. Conversely, and as per the Klemmer example, there’s calls that go in our favour too but many just want to talk about the dodgy ones.
We’re just a poor side pure n simple. That’s what’s holding us back as far as I’m concerned.
Click to expand...
Yep. It’s the school boy errors we make in key moments of games. That’s what kills us more than anything. We lost that game when we failed to score the set after they lost Val to the bin. Momentum shifted, heads dropped. Self inflicted wounds.
 
GCfan said:
I didn’t mention Sezer. I’m talking generally about the hip drop tackles that were charged in Galvin and Klemmer. Since you raise Sezer though, his suspension was off the back of carry over points from prior charges (as is Klemmer’s)
Holmes was an initial offence hence the fine.

I Don’t disagree with your argument around inconsistent gradings though and intent. I’d doubt any player goes into a tackle thinking “I’m gonna break this blokes ankle”

What I don’t agree with is blaming refereeing week in and week out which is kind of the point of this thread if I understand it. We need to be holding our footy team to account first n foremost (in my opinion)!which I don’t need agreement on btw. I respect others opinions I just see it a little differently.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you're saying, although Sezer still would have missed 2 games even if it was his first offence while Val gets a fine.

As I said in my original post, I am confused by the gradings, not by the number of weeks suspension.
 
Should put other thread but now Latrell put sin bin supposed hip drop and major reason was Sean Russell grabs his ankle
Now NRL YOU HAVE A PROBLEM
Coaches should tell players whenever tackled from behind ,Grab your ankle and writhe in pain and will likely put your team in a 13 on 12 situation for 10mins .This gives a major benefit and it will be milked to high heavens
The NRL have created a situation whereby it seems hip drop tackles are in epidemic proportion -Or Are they just the latest way of exploiting the rules !
 
So far this year we have had Galvin, Sezer, Olam suspended for hip drop/dangerous contact tackles, and now it looks like Klemmer joins them. As far as I am aware in none of these incidents did the opposition player miss any subsequent games because they were injured. Mostly they just played on. Like so many rule/interpretation changes introduced by the NRL the current campaign against dangerous legs tackles seems to me to be totally subjective in its interpretation.
 
Now Parra putting on the "Fake Crusher" tackled grabs neck and split second he hears whistle he jumps to his feet no problem .
Need to rename the Awards night from Dally M to the Oscars
Now Parra player on report for hip drop but no sin bin ?
The whole things out of control .! Well done NRL -----LOL !!!
 
Imo they turned the Holmes incident soft due to “extenuating circumstances” ie if Dearden wasn’t involved it wouldn’t have ended up a hip drop.Now that’s definitely open to criticism and with out getting an expert to break down each frame of the tackle we’ll never know.
Klemmer was a lot more clear cut, as was Galvin and Olam, so much easier to rule on.
I don’t like it any more than you but I don’t think it’s a vendetta, it’s just the way decisions have fallen.
 
if paps made the same tackle in the same situation to Val Holmes and injured him would Paps get off with no suspension?

Val Holmes leaped at Paps to tackle and and lost his legs landing on Paps ankle ? Paps was through the gap and Val couldn't stay on his legs before Deardon got there. Deardon even lost his legs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,429 (members: 37, guests: 1,392)
Back
Top