fibrodreaming
Well-known member
@pawsandclaws1 said in [Would you drop BJ?](/post/1176501) said:The fact that a high shot is accidental is irrelevant. His swinging arm made contact with the head and forced one of our best forwards off the field. The player should be suspended?
The NRL make a big song and dance about protecting the head of the players. Yet when a player is laid out they make a subjective distinction between whether the hit was intentional and accidental, which is often an unrealistic distinction.
By that I mean that a players tackling style is often predicated on the fact that if they hit the their opponent in the head they will be excused because it was "accidental", so they have no need to modify their tackling style to minimise the risk of an accidental high-shot.
The difference between Rugby and NRL is stark in this regard. I no longer watch Rugby (too boring) but I get the impression that both Tetevano and Koroisau would have been sent off for their high shots in a Rugby - "accidental" just doesn't cut it. As a consequence one rarely sees "accidental" high shots in that code.
By contrast, NRL is very permissive in this regard. For example, last night on NRL 360 it was agreed that Koroisau's hit on Lucy was "innocuous".
Things will never change while NRL journalists and supporters have this type of "macho" attitudes to high shots.
The NRL talks the talk, but that's all it is - talk !