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

Dennisspicer1 said:
Here is a list in order of every teams amount of judiciary actions fines and suspensions.

Warriors. Total 2
Broncos. " 5
Dolphins. " 6
Cowboys. " 6
Panthers. " 6
Dragons. " 6
Sharks. " 7
Manly. " 7
Rabbits. " 8
Knights. " 9
Eels. " 9
Roosters. " 9
Dogs. " 10
Raiders. " 11
Titans. " 11
Storm. " 11
TIGERS. " 17

HIP DROPS EVERY TIGER THAT PUT ON REPORT FOR ONE HAS BEEN SUSPENDED.

QLD PLAYERS ARE EXEMPT FROM SUSPENSION.

TRIPPING, WEVE HAD 1 SUSPENDED ALREADY,

9WILL SULLIVAN GO FOR HIS BAD ATTEMPT YESTERDAY.
Click to expand...
Gee with that variation you would have to wonder whether they are being coached or not.
 
The stats say we have an epidemic of hip drop tackles and the stats also say its a new development .I say that's rubbish ! For decades there have been those that tackle around the legs and often player tackled from behind .Johnny Raper one of the greatest tacklers and he went low
Sometimes however it can go wrong but hip drop tackles haven't suddenly increased 1000% but coaches and players are aware of the sin bin potential and thts is why it seems to be on the massive increase .The NRL have authored this situation since the really bad hip drops on players like Jackson Hastings and Papenhausen
 
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...
Yep I knew it they all sit in there and get on this piss. There is no other explanation for the howlers they make time and time again.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BZN
The official limp lettuce leaf was applied to Mitchell this morning,just a fine for his dangerous contact charge.Everything is fair at the MRC/judiciary just ask Anusley
 
Kelce68 said:
Intention doesn't matter. Outcome does.

Very few players intend to make contact directly with the head, yet it happens and they are rightly penalised.

A system where a player gets 3/4 weeks suspension, but their victim plays the ball and plays on (Klemmer) and another player destroys the ankle of the opposition player yet only receives a fine (Holmes) is a broken system.

What exactly constitutes 'dangerous' then? Given the tackles were in the same realm of tackling style.
Click to expand...

Intention definitely matters, what are you talking about? Intention is a stronger punishment.
 
Tucker said:
Present your evidence the Rooster one was worse.
Click to expand...
Tucker just to be clear I do not blame on field officials for our poor performance week after week .I think poor coaching ,lower fitness levels ,poor roster and lack of footy smarts are the main reason. There have been a few occasions eg Townsville a couple of years ago and more recently with Badger you have 3 or 4 captains challenges and still haven't lost it indicates the refs calls are guesses and the bottom team is more likely to have loose carry or whatever! My point On field officials have nothing to do with our constant losing however Off field the MRCand/or Judiciary are "killing us " this year with a heavy handed approach
Also feel this is just 2024 .We can't seem to ever put a strong team on the park
 
Stevec said:
Just watch both ! Even if the same the tigers guy 1 match ,the roosters guy $1000 fine
The charge sheet cited both as first offence .
You don't think an elite SOO player gets softer treatment??
Click to expand...
I can’t find the Crichton one.
 
Flippedy said:
You’re kidding! With his record I would’ve expected a week or two. This should have nothing to do with SOO selection, he’s already stated he doesn’t want to play.
Click to expand...
Ur 100% right the biggest grub in the nrl walks away Scott free , now if that had been a tiger player he would have been looking at 4 weeks , if this doesn’t get the tigers fired up to have a crack at the nrl nothing else will
 
Flippedy said:
You’re kidding! With his record I would’ve expected a week or two. This should have nothing to do with SOO selection, he’s already stated he doesn’t want to play.
Click to expand...

He "100% wants to play"

www.theroar.com.au

'100%': Mitchell wants in for Origin - but ban looms as hip drop drama sours Souths' win over Parra

The NRL’s hip drop drama has gone into overdrive with Latrell Mitchell binned in Souths’ 42-26 win over Parramatta – while Joe Ofahengaue was…
www.theroar.com.au
 
jadtiger said:
The official limp lettuce leaf was applied to Mitchell this morning,just a fine for his dangerous contact charge.Everything is fair at the MRC/judiciary just ask Anusley
Click to expand...
It wasn’t a hip drop, not even dangerous. I’m not sure what I’m watching any more. Both of those penalties Mitchell and the Eels one were of a tackler with legs on the ground pulling the attacker to the ground, no dropping of the hips or lifting. Nothing to see.
 
king_sirro said:
Intention definitely matters, what are you talking about? Intention is a stronger punishment.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

Intention cannot always be determined, so it cannot be accurately factored in.

In the context in which you used it, it's irrelevant. Do you think Sezer, Galvin and Klemmer intentionally intended to perform a hip drop, knowing full well the punishment that goes with that?

No.

Do you think Olam had intention to commit a hip drop last week?

No.

So whether or not Holmes 'intended' to commit a hip drop and injure Papali'i is irrelevant. He did. That is the outcome. And that is what he should be judged upon.

I'll reiterate; if somebody commits a shoulder charge directly to the head, do you think they should get off scot-free if he didn't mean to?

No.

Holmes committed a dangerous tackle, where he lost his legs and came down with his bodyweight on the legs of an opposition player, an illegal act, that resulted in a severe, long term injury....

.... Yet you feel it's all good if he didn't mean to?

Righto.

He had two other, safer alternatives. Slide down the legs to the ankles or, release his grip to allow the player through, but reduce injury risk.

He chose neither. Therefore putting g Papali'i at risk. Therefore the approach to the tackle was dangerous, therefore he should've been suspended.

The fact he got away with a fine, particularly given the way they've adjudicated these things of late, is a complete and utter farce.
 
Kelce68 said:
He had two other, safer alternatives. Slide down the legs to the ankles or, release his grip to allow the player through, but reduce injury risk.

He chose neither. Therefore putting g Papali'i at risk. Therefore the approach to the tackle was dangerous, therefore he should've been suspended.
Click to expand...
You have clearly never played the game at any decent level.
 
Kelce68 said:
Incorrect.

Intention cannot always be determined, so it cannot be accurately factored in.

In the context in which you used it, it's irrelevant. Do you think Sezer, Galvin and Klemmer intentionally intended to perform a hip drop, knowing full well the punishment that goes with that?

No.

Do you think Olam had intention to commit a hip drop last week?

No.

So whether or not Holmes 'intended' to commit a hip drop and injure Papali'i is irrelevant. He did. That is the outcome. And that is what he should be judged upon.

I'll reiterate; if somebody commits a shoulder charge directly to the head, do you think they should get off scot-free if he didn't mean to?

No.

Holmes committed a dangerous tackle, where he lost his legs and came down with his bodyweight on the legs of an opposition player, an illegal act, that resulted in a severe, long term injury....

.... Yet you feel it's all good if he didn't mean to?

Righto.

He had two other, safer alternatives. Slide down the legs to the ankles or, release his grip to allow the player through, but reduce injury risk.

He chose neither. Therefore putting g Papali'i at risk. Therefore the approach to the tackle was dangerous, therefore he should've been suspended.

The fact he got away with a fine, particularly given the way they've adjudicated these things of late, is a complete and utter farce.
Click to expand...
Your miss understanding the meaning of intent in this case.
Both Galvin and Sezer ‘intended’ on pulling the player back over them using their body weight to get the player to the ground.
Klemmer ‘intended’ on holding onto the player and wrestling him to the ground.
Holmes ‘intended’ to lunge at a passing player and attempt to pull him to the ground.
Intent is not in relation to causing harm. It’s the intent in the manner of which the player tries to make / complete the tackle.
The two at the top of the list, have the greater margin of error and hence would be classified as careless or even reckless contact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

... and 15 more.
Total: 1,540 (members: 65, guests: 1,475)
Back
Top