Thurston to get suspended

[steven_tiger]

He won't get suspended for that.

All you QLDers are the same… my mate reckons it shouldn't have even been a penalty :laughing:

You cannot lead with the footy. He did it. Not only that, he made contact with the face/head.

He should miss a few weeks at least IMO.

A few weeks?? You have to be kidding…

Wait.. Cowboys play the Tigers this week right? Spose that has nothing to do with it... 😕 :wink:

Shouldn't have even been put on report imo.

Are you serious?

**Read.**

<big>**HE LED WITH THE FOOT IN A TACKLE.**</big> It's an illegal method of attemtping a tackle!

They are cracking down on it. A few players have already been suspended this year, and they didn't make contact with the other players' head.

 

[Zaibatsu]

Just calling it how I see it, there was nothing in it imo, its a stupid rule to begin with, you should be able to do anything within your power to prevent a try - as long as you are playing at the ball and not the man.

 

[farahfan]

If a cleanskin like Merritt can get a few weeks off for sliding in, Thurston should get more time off for a kick to the face.

bingo, recall at the end of last season slater got flack for doing the same and mention of a tougher stance towards such acts
thurston should be looking at a few weeks on the sideline

 

[system]

It is Thurston.

They will not suspend him.

Under the rules it should be a suspendable offence but he won't be

 

[Geo]

He won't get suspended for that.

All you QLDers are the same… my mate reckons it shouldn't have even been a penalty :laughing:

You cannot lead with the footy. He did it. Not only that, he made contact with the face/head.

He should miss a few weeks at least IMO.

A few weeks?? You have to be kidding…

Wait.. Cowboys play the Tigers this week right? Spose that has nothing to do with it... 😕 :wink:

Shouldn't have even been put on report imo.

Makes no difference who he plays this week…..He led with the foot whether contact was made or not....It is illegal.....Slater was responsible for the rule being introduced....

but your right he'll get off....he's got the Gus Gould 'reflex action defence'

 

[king_sirro]

Just calling it how I see it, there was nothing in it imo, its a stupid rule to begin with, you should be able to do anything within your power to prevent a try - as long as you are playing at the ball and not the man.

Your looking stir are'nt u? U have to be. Thurston kicked a player in the head and the player came up bleeding, enough said.

 

[Zaibatsu]

Just calling it how I see it, there was nothing in it imo, its a stupid rule to begin with, you should be able to do anything within your power to prevent a try - as long as you are playing at the ball and not the man.

Your looking stir are'nt u? U have to be. Thurston kicked a player in the head and the player came up bleeding, enough said.

He was playing at the ball, he missed… Penalty yes, but that should be all.

Its no different to a player falling into a tackle and getting collected around the chops, but the NRL lets that fly as an excuse.

There will always be collateral damage in this sport, to be honest I can't recall a serious injury being caused by it.

 

[Danos]

It is Thurston.

They will not suspend him.

Under the rules it should be a suspendable offence but he won't be

They suspended Cameron Smith before a grand final. I'd be surprised if they overlooked this. I know with Smith they were looking to make an example out of a high profile player. Maybe they'll do the same thing this time.

 

[Geo]

Just calling it how I see it, there was nothing in it imo, its a stupid rule to begin with, you should be able to do anything within your power to prevent a try - as long as you are playing at the ball and not the man.

Your looking stir are'nt u? U have to be. Thurston kicked a player in the head and the player came up bleeding, enough said.

He was playing at the ball, he missed… Penalty yes, but that should be all.

Its no different to a player falling into a tackle and getting collected around the chops, but the NRL lets that fly as an excuse.

There will always be collateral damage in this sport, to be honest I can't recall a serious injury being caused by it.

The defensive player can't play at the ball with his feet in the act of scoring a try….It's Illegal......... :unamused:

 

[innsaneink]

Its Zaibatsu, he's a Queenslander, logic and common sense does not apply.

King Sirro got it right

 

[king_sirro]

Just calling it how I see it, there was nothing in it imo, its a stupid rule to begin with, you should be able to do anything within your power to prevent a try - as long as you are playing at the ball and not the man.

Your looking stir are'nt u? U have to be. Thurston kicked a player in the head and the player came up bleeding, enough said.

He was playing at the ball, he missed… Penalty yes, but that should be all.

Its no different to a player falling into a tackle and getting collected around the chops, but the NRL lets that fly as an excuse.

There will always be collateral damage in this sport, to be honest I can't recall a serious injury being caused by it.

Do u realise that this sort of thing has been outlawed regardless of if they are playing at the ball or not?

 

[Zaibatsu]

The defensive player can't play at the ball with his feet in the act of scoring a try….It's Illegal......... :unamused:

The point is there was no intent to deliberately kick him in the face, therefore it is "collateral" damage. NOT intentional…

Penalty sufficient.

 

[Danos]

In all honestly, I hope he plays. I'd hate to miss another chance at seeing him whinge all sunday arvo like he usually does when we spank the Cowboys.

 

[Zaibatsu]

Do u realise that this sort of thing has been outlawed regardless of if they are playing at the ball or not?

Yes, tackling somebody high is illegal as well, however people are quick to make excuses about players "falling into tackles"…

Anything more than a penalty is an over-reaction, its RUGBY LEAGUE, these things happen! As long as there was no deliberate intent then harden up and move on.

Or go play netball.

 

[Geo]

The defensive player can't play at the ball with his feet in the act of scoring a try….It's Illegal......... :unamused:

The point is there was no intent to deliberately kick him in the face, therefore it is "collateral" damage. NOT intentional…

Penalty sufficient.

Rubbish….now I know your just stirring Z....intent has noting to do with it....

If someone unintentionally coathangers a bloke...gets put on report...he'll get off cause he didn't mean it....get real...

 

[system]

Do u realise that this sort of thing has been outlawed regardless of if they are playing at the ball or not?

Yes, tackling somebody high is illegal as well, however people are quick to make excuses about players "falling into tackles"…

Anything more than a penalty is an over-reaction, its RUGBY LEAGUE, these things happen! As long as there was no deliberate intent then harden up and move on.

Or go play netball.

Not really. Slater never had intent to hurt anyone it seems but it was his specific motion which was outlawed as it endangers a player who, through the process of scoring the try, is incapable of defending their head from a stray boot. The potential damage and the high likelihood of a law suit for damages succeeding meant that the act in it's entireity was outlawed. There are no circumstances in which using the feet is justified.

With the high tackle example there is the principle of discretion built into the process.

With this, like the case is with the spear tackle, there is a black and white rule with no grey

 

[Golden]

QLDers its like talking to a brickwall with them

they check the Aust team on which QLDers make the team first instead of even supporting their country

 

[Zaibatsu]

The defensive player can't play at the ball with his feet in the act of scoring a try….It's Illegal......... :unamused:

The point is there was no intent to deliberately kick him in the face, therefore it is "collateral" damage. NOT intentional…

Penalty sufficient.

Rubbish….now I know your just stirring Z....intent has noting to do with it....

If someone unintentionally coathangers a bloke...gets put on report...he'll get off cause he didn't mean it....get real...

How is holding out your arm at neck height to coathanger somebody comparable to trying to kick a football?

One is playing at a man, the other is playing at the ball! THATS where the intent factor comes into it!

 

[MGB]

I'd be surprised if he get's a week, but it would be interesting to compare what Berrigan copped a few years back in Origin against Fitler, very similar looking incidents.

 

[NJLM78]

He should be suspended. But origin rules are always different so who knows. In an NRL game he would be out for a few weeks.