JWH and Test Selection

[player 1]

https://www.nrl.com/jwh-keen-for-kiw...6/default.aspx

Saw this article and when he mentions how he has learned more about being a prop, it occurs to me how JWH is no longer a judiciary magnet as he once was. He has got that over-aggressiveness, and particularly the high hits, out of his game.

We are lucky to have him. Tough but fair, the way props should be.

[Easts75]

https://www.nrl.com/jwh-keen-for-kiw...6/default.aspx

Saw this article and when he mentions how he has learned more about being a prop, it occurs to me how JWH is no longer a judiciary magnet as he once was. He has got that over-aggressiveness, and particularly the high hits, out of his game.

We are lucky to have him. Tough but fair, the way props should be.

He still isn't playing the footy he was when he was a bit more of a loose cannon. Was great last week though so let's hope he is building towards a big season

[stephenj]

remeber when jwh decided to beat the dogs by himself, unstoppable! would love to see that again?

[ism22]

https://www.nrl.com/jwh-keen-for-kiw...6/default.aspx

Saw this article and when he mentions how he has learned more about being a prop, it occurs to me how JWH is no longer a judiciary magnet as he once was. He has got that over-aggressiveness, and particularly the high hits, out of his game.

We are lucky to have him. Tough but fair, the way props should be.

Seems like somebody has done a bit of work with him and Napa? For example last week we saw Napa pull out of a tackle on Jennings (Jennings is much shorter and if he'd intentionally ducked a little, Napa likely woulda been suspended for smacking him on the chin with a straight arm). This means we conceded a try, but kept our player.

It seems to me that massive props have to:
1. Choose their tackles. Do they NEED to smack a guy or can he easily milk a penalty?
2. Know when to fold 'em... is a line break or a try better than 4 weeks on the sideline? Probably.

> Roosters prop Jared Waerea-Hargreaves admits he was surprised to have missed out on selection for New Zealand's 30-12 Anzac Test loss to the Kangaroos and has vowed to do everything in his power to win back his Kiwis jersey ahead of the World Cup.

Probably best he wasn't picked with all they shyte that went on after the game.

[Guest]

he doesn't get picked because he doesn't perform against australia only against the likes of samoa does he play decent our fans think it's an outrage he doesn't get selected I don't understand how pearce gets crucified by our fans because he doesn't perform for nsw but it's never mentioned about hargraves going missing in tests

[eddie]

It seems to me that massive props have to:
1. Choose their tackles. Do they NEED to smack a guy or can he easily milk a penalty?
2. Know when to fold 'em... is a line break or a try better than 4 weeks on the sideline? Probably.
.

Spot on Izzy.
In a perfect world accidental head highs should come under the penalty sufficient catagory.
Intentional high shots would attract severe punishment, and careless high shots that can be deemed reckless are suspension worthy.

The points system and early guilty plea rubbish should be scrapped.
What we need is a judiciary that looks at each case on its merits and applies common sense.
We've got more chance of winning lotto.

[Thirteen]

I know he was pretty dominant against Parramatta, but overall Jarred has been average this season. He probably wasn't worthy of a position in the New Zealand team. With the druggies being unavailable for the World Cup, you'd think he will definitely be included.

[Guest]

Spot on Izzy.
In a perfect world accidental head highs should come under the penalty sufficient catagory.
Intentional high shots would attract severe punishment, and careless high shots that can be deemed reckless are suspension worthy.

The points system and early guilty plea rubbish should be scrapped.
What we need is a judiciary that looks at each case on its merits and applies common sense.
We've got more chance of winning lotto.

so sitting from the sidelines how do you determine what is intentional and what is accidental

[eddie]

so sitting from the sidelines how do you determine what is intentional and what is accidental

Fair question.
I'd suggest that the judiciary is made up of ex-players with common sense and no agendas.
They'd be watching different camera angles , and have to make that call on a case by case basis.

We can all see in certain times that players duck or fall into tackles, and in a lot of cases taller forwards can easily be wrong footed or have their forearm be deflected into someones head.
It isn't gonna be foolproof (what system is?} , but players should get a fair hearing and cop the umpires decision, so to speak.

In my opinion, the vast majority of head highs in this day and age are accidental.

[Guest]

Fair question.
I'd suggest that the judiciary is made up of ex-players with common sense and no agendas.
They'd be watching different camera angles , and have to make that call on a case by case basis.

We can all see in certain times that players duck or fall into tackles, and in a lot of cases taller forwards can easily be wrong footed or have their forearm be deflected into someones head.
It isn't gonna be foolproof (what system is?} , but players should get a fair hearing and cop the umpires decision, so to speak.

In my opinion, the vast majority of head highs in this day and age are accidental.

i agree probably 99.99% are accidental unlike the days in the 80s and 70s and earlier there used to be far more intentional shots but unfortunately i think the only way is to make it one rule regardless of intent or not because there is no real way to determine intent all it takes is a player to say it was accidental and who is to say otherwise the only time i believe something is without a doubt intentional is when it is an elbow or something of that nature as there is no way you need to use your elbow in a tackle so its too much of a grey area bringing in intent and reckless and careless etc i do agree that the points and judiciary should be scrapped theyre all useless and confusing but i would make it all automatic and make offences stack i also think that a suspension for a head high tackle should not have an impact on the sentence of another offence and carry over should only be for the season it happened in you shouldnt still be judged on something that happened last year i think fines in conjunction with suspensions are the way eg head high = 1 week suspension and $1000 fine then the second time you do it 2 week suspension and $2000 fine then the third time you do it 3 week suspension and $3000 fine etc something like that

[eddie]

Cool. The gist of your post sounds reasonable, but I found it very hard to read.
I must be getting old, but the space bar and puntuation would be a great help to me..........

[Flipper Hands]

i agree probably 99.99% are accidental unlike the days in the 80s and 70s and earlier there used to be far more intentional shots but unfortunately i think the only way is to make it one rule regardless of intent or not because there is no real way to determine intent all it takes is a player to say it was accidental and who is to say otherwise the only time i believe something is without a doubt intentional is when it is an elbow or something of that nature as there is no way you need to use your elbow in a tackle so its too much of a grey area bringing in intent and reckless and careless etc i do agree that the points and judiciary should be scrapped theyre all useless and confusing but i would make it all automatic and make offences stack i also think that a suspension for a head high tackle should not have an impact on the sentence of another offence and carry over should only be for the season it happened in you shouldnt still be judged on something that happened last year i think fines in conjunction with suspensions are the way eg head high = 1 week suspension and $1000 fine then the second time you do it 2 week suspension and $2000 fine then the third time you do it 3 week suspension and $3000 fine etc something like that

P.U.N.C.T.U.A.T.I.O.N. FFS!

I'm sure there is something good in there, but I'll be damned if I am going to sift through your "stream of conciousness" wall of text. Not the first time I have skipped a post of yours for this reason.

[Guest]

then why didn't you just ignore it and move on why the need to tell the world you didn't read it you've got the johnny tobin problem of thinking people on this website care what you do on here

[milanja]

Cool. The gist of your post sounds reasonable, but I found it very hard to read.
I must be getting old, but the space bar and puntuation would be a great help to me..........

Very politely put Eddie. Good to have you back.

[eddie]

Very politely put Eddie. Good to have you back.

thank you.
Computer screens are at that awkward distance where I'm not sure if my reading glasses help or not.
I like to err on the side of not wearing the bloody things unless I have to.