Forwards aggression and the Captain



  • Haha… Ironic



  • @tigermac88:

    You keep on hiding behind your keyboard champ, you must feel really big behind it.

    As should you:

    @tigermac88:

    Gee I’d hate to play a team sport with some of you guys who think that our forwards shouldn’t have bashed James every time he touched the ball in that last 20 minutes.



  • This is an emotional thread, some people getting carried away a bit I think. That’s good… Shows passion.

    A hypothetical:
    I reckon it might be a safe bet the players didn’t even know of his injury until ate the game… They’re trained to remain focussed on the game… Forget about their injured team mate, the trainers are there to look after him… They may have thought he’d gone off for a HIA. They may not have seen the blood and if they did there’s always cuts etc.
    In a way I’m impressed we remained focussed… We were behind iirc… We had a job to do and they professionally stuck to their roles and almost came up with a win



  • @Gary Bakerloo:

    @tigermac88:

    You keep on hiding behind your keyboard champ, you must feel really big behind it.

    As should you:

    @tigermac88:

    Gee I’d hate to play a team sport with some of you guys who think that our forwards shouldn’t have bashed James every time he touched the ball in that last 20 minutes.

    What’s wrong with that?? Did I call anyone an idiot, or stupid poster but anyway carry on sticking up for your little buddy…. This forum has more of a boys club than the Tigers did 😆

    All I said is that I was expressing an opinion but if he wants to call me a peanut or my posts stupid then he doesn’t need to read them or comment on them if they’re so stupid… Just another one that’s allowed to troll on the forum



  • I suspect if a tigers player had hurt an opponent in a similar tackle the opinions here would be very different.

    As i said there wasn’t much in it. Teddy was falling and got caught, happens all the time and sometimes it can’t be avoided. It’s a contact sport. Unfortunately for James he was badly hurt but the MRC obviously didn’t think there was much in it and neither do most media.



  • @Bones:

    I suspect if a tigers player had hurt an opponent in a similar tackle the opinions here would be very different.

    As i said there wasn’t much in it. Teddy was falling and got caught, happens all the time and sometimes it can’t be avoided. It’s a contact sport. Unfortunately for James he was badly hurt but the MRC obviously didn’t think there was much in it and neither do most media.

    I agree - there was no intent to make contact with the head whatsoever IMO. James himself was very low to the ground, and Teddy was falling even more so.

    I would argue that there needs to be more responsibility on the behalf of the tackler to avoid the head/neck region, but that’s another issue. That Simona can get three weeks for the so-called crusher (again, no intent), and James gets a week for this just doesn’t make sense.



  • @ricksen:

    @Bones:

    I suspect if a tigers player had hurt an opponent in a similar tackle the opinions here would be very different.

    As i said there wasn’t much in it. Teddy was falling and got caught, happens all the time and sometimes it can’t be avoided. It’s a contact sport. Unfortunately for James he was badly hurt but the MRC obviously didn’t think there was much in it and neither do most media.

    I agree - there was no intent to make contact with the head whatsoever IMO. James himself was very low to the ground, and Teddy was falling even more so.

    I would argue that there needs to be more responsibility on the behalf of the tackler to avoid the head/neck region, but that’s another issue. That Simona can get three weeks for the so-called crusher (again, no intent), and James gets a week for this just doesn’t make sense.

    There’s absolutely no consistency from the MRC…



  • @tigermac88:

    @ricksen:

    @Bones:

    I suspect if a tigers player had hurt an opponent in a similar tackle the opinions here would be very different.

    As i said there wasn’t much in it. Teddy was falling and got caught, happens all the time and sometimes it can’t be avoided. It’s a contact sport. Unfortunately for James he was badly hurt but the MRC obviously didn’t think there was much in it and neither do most media.

    I agree - there was no intent to make contact with the head whatsoever IMO. James himself was very low to the ground, and Teddy was falling even more so.

    I would argue that there needs to be more responsibility on the behalf of the tackler to avoid the head/neck region, but that’s another issue. That Simona can get three weeks for the so-called crusher (again, no intent), and James gets a week for this just doesn’t make sense.

    There’s absolutely no consistency from the MRC…

    In general i agree but i think they got this one right.



  • @TigerWoods:

    I agree Woods or somebody should have done something. I’m not talking about a cheap shot or biff but even just getting in James’ face and letting him know they weren’t happy about it.
    You have your mates back in Australia and especially footy. If you’re happy to stand back and watch your best player get pulverised then you shouldn’t be out there, let alone be a captain.
    I can only imagine Blocker Roach’s reaction. Teddy wouldn’t have been the only one with a broken jaw.

    Your right - the ref. And then the MRC. As neither really did a lot about it, no wonder the people are going to get frustrated with the lack of protection.



  • @innsaneink:

    This is an emotional thread, some people getting carried away a bit I think. That’s good… Shows passion.

    A hypothetical:
    I reckon it might be a safe bet the players didn’t even know of his injury until ate the game… They’re trained to remain focussed on the game… Forget about their injured team mate, the trainers are there to look after him… They may have thought he’d gone off for a HIA. They may not have seen the blood and if they did there’s always cuts etc.
    In a way I’m impressed we remained focussed… We were behind iirc… We had a job to do and they professionally stuck to their roles and almost came up with a win

    You could be right Ink. The same thought crossed my mind……



  • @Snake:

    Well after watching Woods basically making out Ryan James was the victim in the press conference and watching the forwards not respond to there fallen mate after being subjected to a vicious head high smashing his jaw and teeth one wonders what type of mateship exists in this team …I call them a pack of cream puffs and I will keep my opinions of the captain to myself as I come from a different era where men were a bit different in there reaction to this type of incident …great leadership Woods!

    I understand the frustration mate because I’m from another era too.

    But Woods and the rest of this team isn’t. It’s mostly a different game now when it comes to retaliation etc. These days they hit as hard as they can in the tackle, then some give them a hand to get up and share a prayer after the whistle.

    Woods said after full-time that he thought there was no intent and I think that was the difference for him. We’ve seen him arc up before over things that did have intent.

    Woods is a new age caption. He doesn’t seem interested in wasting energy. Getting ‘square’ can waste both emotional and physical energy and can backfire too. It was clear that he was working more toward a win than focusing on putting a big shot on Ryan James.

    So I didn’t have a problem with it… Just my take.



  • The problem is that in that scenario, it’s not a fair contest for the fullback. Fullbacks are on a hiding to nothing as they are generally stationary under high balls and get belted by fast moving defence. Classic case of one player playing the ball and 13 playing the man.

    I actually think there should be a rule change to reduce risk of injuries - a player should have the option of calling “mark” for a catch inside his own 20m area and receive a play the ball (tackle 1).



  • @Gary Bakerloo:

    The problem is that in that scenario, it’s not a fair contest for the fullback. Fullbacks are on a hiding to nothing as they are generally stationary under high balls and get belted by fast moving defence. Classic case of one player playing the ball and 13 playing the man.

    I actually think there should be a rule change to reduce risk of injuries - a player should have the option of calling “mark” for a catch inside his own 20m area and receive a play the ball (tackle 1).

    They could just play touch.


  • Banned

    @Gary Bakerloo:

    The problem is that in that scenario, it’s not a fair contest for the fullback. Fullbacks are on a hiding to nothing as they are generally stationary under high balls and get belted by fast moving defence. Classic case of one player playing the ball and 13 playing the man.

    I actually think there should be a rule change to reduce risk of injuries - a player should have the option of calling “mark” for a catch inside his own 20m area and receive a play the ball (tackle 1).

    what is wrong with the old rule how the tacklers had to stay a certain distance back after the ball was caught on the full? I don’t know why it was changed?



  • @Gary Bakerloo:

    The problem is that in that scenario, it’s not a fair contest for the fullback. Fullbacks are on a hiding to nothing as they are generally stationary under high balls and get belted by fast moving defence. Classic case of one player playing the ball and 13 playing the man.

    I actually think there should be a rule change to reduce risk of injuries - a player should have the option of calling “mark” for a catch inside his own 20m area and receive a play the ball (tackle 1).

    I agree with the first part of your post- fullbacks are just sitting ducks under the high ball with no protection. Bombs are a massive blight on our game in any case- they are a crap tactic.
    As for changing the rules to allow for a “fair catch” NFL-style I don’t agree with that- that sort of thing is just Americanised rubbish along with “taking a knee” to kill the last few minutes of a game, would hate to see RL reduced to that.
    The easiest solution is for the NRL to actually have some balls and heavily suspend players who make contact with the head of a player (especially a defenceless one like a fullback sitting under a bomb). They are the rules of the bloody game- no contact to the head.
    Kade Snowden broke Ray Thompson’s jaw in an incident that was more innocuous and less ill-intended a few seasons ago and got 8 weeks from memory. As the NRL have proven regularly, punishment depends on who the person at fault plays for and the vested interest the NRL has in that particular player’s team being successful. The tribunal has just been an absolute dog’s breakfast for many years with punishments taking on the form of a lottery. The NRL having no balls is the root cause of all this crap. Corrupt as you can get.
    Would be interesting to see what would happen if Jazza “this is my house” Hayne gets his jaw busted on that annoying looking head of his this weekend and the NRL loses it’s golden meal ticket for the rest of the season, punishment would be more severe you can be certain of it.


Log in to reply
 

Recent Topics