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

[Kelce68]

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.

Well, you're partially correct.

You're correct in your summation of the concept of intent in situations where it is relevant. Where you said 'margin for error', I'd call it likelihood/risk of injury; basically the same concept.

I don't, however, agree that Holmes' tackle carried with it clearly less risk than all of the others, particularly at a magnitude indicated by the forthcoming penalties for each of the examples we're discussing. And the differences in punishment is a key factor here.

It is that, which I heavily dispute.

But you're also proving my point that intent is irrelevant, or, and I'll correct myself, is far less relevant, to the outcome of both the execution of the tackle and the outcome overall, pertaining to injury. If we're fair dinkum about eradicating dangerous tackles from the game, then an outcome that causes injury, whereby the tackler had the power to execute a defensive decision in a safer manner, even if it is to the detriment of their team, must be considered.

It was charged as a 'dangerous tackle' and Papali'i has severely injured his ankle as a result. So if the judiciary claim its dangerous, isn't the injury some small factor, at least, in determining how dangerous?

If there's nothing the tackler could have done, it is not foul play and therefore no charge. And I think that's where the differences of opinion arise here; that is, some feel Holmes was simply executing a tackle with no other options, whereas others feel that, having been wrong-footed, the feet-losing lunge that he committed carried with it an element, or percentage point of risk to the attacker.

I'm not going to argue that it was blatant, cut and dry and deserved 4 weeks. But, considering all the factors and the rhetoric around this type of tackle, a fine is the incorrect punishment in my opinion.

 

[king_sirro]

2 things here, firstly i should have made clear by saying that intentional i mean an intentional action. I dont belive Galvin or Klemmer deliberately wanted to do a hip drop. However the movement they chose to do was very deliberate unfortunately reslulting in contact with the legs.

Secondly, I'm not wrong at all that intention matters. I don't see how it be argues any other way.

 

[Kelce68]

2 things here, firstly i should have made clear by saying that intentional i mean an intentional action. I dont belive Galvin or Klemmer deliberately wanted to do a hip drop. However the movement they chose to do was very deliberate unfortunately reslulting in contact with the legs.

Secondly, I'm not wrong at all that intention matters. I don't see how it be argues any other way.

You're right, I used the term 'irrelevant' too liberally.

It is primarily the deciding factor in grading.

I was more arguing its role vs outcome as a deciding factor. I think the latter should play a greater role, at least in this context.

 

[Tucker]

You're right, I used the term 'irrelevant' too liberally.

It is primarily the deciding factor in grading.

I was more arguing it's role vs outcome as a deciding factor. I think the latter should play a greater role, at least in this context.

That’s not what you said. At all.
Good to see you backtrack on it.

 

[king_sirro]

You're right, I used the term 'irrelevant' too liberally.

It is primarily the deciding factor in grading.

I was more arguing it's role vs outcome as a deciding factor. I think the latter should play a greater role, at least in this context.

I thought I quoted you with my last reply, glad you saw it anyway.

I'll disagree on this one, as I think the intent of losing your legs, pulling your weight forward and the tackled players weight back etc with hip drops is important and I don't think Holmes did that. IMO his contact came as no fault of his own.

 

[Kelce68]

I thought I quoted you with my last reply, glad you saw it anyway.

I'll disagree on this one, as I think the intent of losing your legs, pulling your weight forward and the tackled players weight back etc with hip drops is important and I don't think Holmes did that. IMO his contact came as no fault of his own.

All good, we're allowed to disagree 👍.

As always, I'm here for the discussion, not to wear a crown.

 

[Kelce68]

That’s not what you said. At all.
Good to see you backtrack on it.

I know, that's why I took consideration and changed my stance in response to the discussion.

I'd like to think it takes a lick of maturity to openly walk back or alter a stance.

 

[Needaname]

Well, you're partially correct.

You're correct in your summation of the concept of intent in situations where it is relevant. Where you said 'margin for error', I'd call it likelihood/risk of injury; basically the same concept.

I don't, however, agree that Holmes' tackle carried with it clearly less risk than all of the others, particularly at a magnitude indicated by the forthcoming penalties for each of the examples we're discussing. And the differences in punishment is a key factor here.

It is that, which I heavily dispute.

But you're also proving my point that intent is irrelevant, or, and I'll correct myself, is far less relevant, to the outcome of both the execution of the tackle and the outcome overall, pertaining to injury. If we're fair dinkum about eradicating dangerous tackles from the game, then an outcome that causes injury, whereby the tackler had the power to execute a defensive decision in a safer manner, even if it is to the detriment of their team, must be considered.

It was charged as a 'dangerous tackle' and Papali'i has severely injured his ankle as a result. So if the judiciary claim its dangerous, isn't the injury some small factor, at least, in determining how dangerous?

If there's nothing the tackler could have done, it is not foul play and therefore no charge. And I think that's where the differences of opinion arise here; that is, some feel Holmes was simply executing a tackle with no other options, whereas others feel that, having been wrong-footed, the feet-losing lunge that he committed carried with it an element, or percentage point of risk to the attacker.

I'm not going to argue that it was blatant, cut and dry and deserved 4 weeks. But, considering all the factors and the rhetoric around this type of tackle, a fine is the incorrect punishment in my opinion.

The only issue I had with it all; was the media response to it when it occured. Whilst I tend to agree with them that it was an unfortunate position he ended up in. I couldn’t believe the commentary was so biased in favour of the player.
Where as a Tigers player even has the in game commentator ‘Warren Ryan, I’m looking at you’ suggesting the extend of the charge by the match review committee.
That part I am bothered by.
Conscious bias is everywhere in this game.

 

[bptiger 0]

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

Should have x- players in the bunker , rather than the dip sticks we have now

 

[Flippedy]

Should have x- players in the bunker , rather than the dip sticks we have now

Have had ex players on the judiciary and as refs, they’re all crap. They seem to lose perspective of the game once they retire from it.

 

[Dennisspicer1]

Klemmer gets 3 weeks.

Makes us 18 players suspended or fined.

7 more than any other club.

And by the way, I watched the match live on telly, also a replay and still have not found a replay of Klemmers HIP Drop.
Can anyone that saw it let me know in what minute it occurred.

 

[Telltails]

The "intent" factor for some players is definitely treated differently than others
Why has no one mentioned the flop with contact knees to the head that resulted in Hynes HIA?
Naden does a flop with contact from the forearm and sin binned and suspended. Player plays on.

 

[gregjm87]

Klemmer gets 3 weeks.

Makes us 18 players suspended or fined.

7 more than any other club.

And by the way, I watched the match live on telly, also a replay and still have not found a replay of Klemmers HIP Drop.
Can anyone that saw it let me know in what minute it occurred.

Klemmer in hot water over hip drop | Fox Sports Videos

NRL: West Tiger David Klemmer is facing a stint on the sidelines after a nasty hip drop in a 14-point loss to the North Queensland Cowboys.

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Dennisspicer1]

Klemmer in hot water over hip drop | Fox Sports Videos

NRL: West Tiger David Klemmer is facing a stint on the sidelines after a nasty hip drop in a 14-point loss to the North Queensland Cowboys.

www.foxsports.com.au

Thnx.

 

[Dennisspicer1]

Klemmer in hot water over hip drop | Fox Sports Videos

NRL: West Tiger David Klemmer is facing a stint on the sidelines after a nasty hip drop in a 14-point loss to the North Queensland Cowboys.

www.foxsports.com.au

Thnx.

 

[Champ1]

These decisions going against us isn't why we aren't winning. We aren't winning because we make too many mistakes at key moments, however it shouldn't mean that we get so many decisions against us when others get away with the same incidents.

I disagree with your first statement. The refs can & do rule against the Tigers consistently. For example, why do we have to use 3 challenges to get correct rulings? For example, a ref can & does call consistently against a team. If it is before the 20 minute mark in the game, usually the duded team will not challenge because they dont want to waste the challenge. This then gives the opposing side a massive advantage. Just one bogus call can be the difference in winning & losing a game. We all saw the challenge we called against the Cowboys a couple of years when Holmes did the offside kick off & the Ref said it was checked & cleared. But Keary gets a try awarded from a knock on. The ball bounces off Fidows shoulder into his hands & he scores a try. Brooks did the same thing last year however it was called back as a knock on. Guarantee you this year wearing Manly colors he could do the same thing & it would be a try. Talau wearing Manly colors can knock on & that was called a try. .Olam gets taken out when he would of scored a try & WE have to challenge & just get a penalty , when it should of been 10 in the bin.Thats the consistent BS that goes on & has gone on.
Sure the Tigers have to improve in multiple areas & some games we are our own worst enemy but why should we have to score 4 or 5 extra trys than the opposition because of the shafting we get from the refs?

 

[tigerjoe 0]

I disagree with your first statement. The refs can & do rule against the Tigers consistently. For example, why do we have to use 3 challenges to get correct rulings? For example, a ref can & does call consistently against a team. If it is before the 20 minute mark in the game, usually the duded team will not challenge because they dont want to waste the challenge. This then gives the opposing side a massive advantage. Just one bogus call can be the difference in winning & losing a game. We all saw the challenge we called against the Cowboys a couple of years when Holmes did the offside kick off & the Ref said it was checked & cleared. But Keary gets a try awarded from a knock on. The ball bounces off Fidows shoulder into his hands & he scores a try. Brooks did the same thing last year however it was called back as a knock on. Guarantee you this year wearing Manly colors he could do the same thing & it would be a try. Talau wearing Manly colors can knock on & that was called a try. .Olam gets taken out when he would of scored a try & WE have to challenge & just get a penalty , when it should of been 10 in the bin.Thats the consistent BS that goes on & has gone on.
Sure the Tigers have to improve in multiple areas & some games we are our own worst enemy but why should we have to score 4 or 5 extra trys than the opposition because of the shafting we get from the refs?

Well said

 

[bptiger 0]

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.

What a load of triple , do u really know what ur going on about , so a player making a tackle goes oh I will do this or I will do that , it’s done in a split second and there under fatig

 

[hank37w]

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...

Different situation altogether, the Wests Tigers Player would not be in contention for State of Origin selection.

 

[hank37w]

I agree we got some calls go our way this game. It's an odd occurrence

But losing isn't.