Official Match Day Thread: Roosters v Warriors

[zac]

i'm not so sure. i don't have a problem with the crackdown on contact with the head but when an attacker dives at the feet of a defender so as not to get tackled in goal well he's more to blame than the defender for putting himself in a dangerous position.

[King Salvo]

I honestly dunno what report's for when the game's gonna be reviewed anyway (and you can get suspended without being put on report).

Weirdness...

Not all incidents are picked up when they happen though or the ref might have been fine with it but the MRC have a different view so the player is later charged.

The strange one is players being put on a report by the ref for a previous incident a set or more back when their is a break in play (Bunker reviews that incident ) - I have seen a few of these and what was worse was the offending team had the ball for a scrum feed and scored in that set.

If that incident was picked up when it happened then that team would have been penalised and the player put on report and of course would not have been in a position to have scored that try as a result.

[Chookies74]

Yeah a lot of our passes are useless, flat, hospital basses TBH. I'm all for passing the ball around but if you're passing purely so that somebody else has to take the tackle (plus possibly knock it on in the process or whatever) then there's no need to pass.

I see that play differently, Sitili hits that hard line, holds two defenders, that enabled us to score off the version when we went out the back. He's tough enough to handle it, odd mistake, yes, but it's part of the chess game that Robbo plays

[Headless Chook]

I see that play differently, Sitili hits that hard line, holds two defenders, that enabled us to score off the version when we went out the back. He's tough enough to handle it, odd mistake, yes, but it's part of the chess game that Robbo plays

Also drags an extra defender in to the tackle which opens up the short side plays that Keary and Walker thrive on

[TheLoneRooster]

Ye, I agree. Penalty was definitely the right call. Concussion protocol should be the main priority, so any contact to the head, doesn't matter in what context (barring heead clash and knees) is a straight penalty. As you said, report is procedure, especially when its Rads or JWH, who the refs love reporting. Did any of you catch when the ref ut JWH on report he said "of course it is!" Love it

LOL at the last sentence - I heard that too and had a chuckle at JWH's response. JWH knows he's targeted.

Interesting that you made an exception for knees to the head a la Haas on a Roosters player (don't recall which Rooster it was).

[FlamingRooster]

LOL at the last sentence - I heard that too and had a chuckle at JWH's response. JWH knows he's targeted.

Interesting that you made an exception for knees to the head a la Haas on a Roosters player (don't recall which Rooster it was).

JWH is a funny man. In regards to the knees, the way I see it as unless u slide in late and theres no clear attempt at a ball, knee contact to the head is unavoiable, whereas any contact waist high is avoidable. I know some will say if a player is falling it is unavoidable, and to a certain extent this is true, but the interpretation is that if they are falling you can pull out of the tackle. While I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation, it is clear that any waist high contact with the head is a penalty.

[Johnny Brass]

LOL at the last sentence - I heard that too and had a chuckle at JWH's response. JWH knows he's targeted.

Interesting that you made an exception for knees to the head a la Haas on a Roosters player (don't recall which Rooster it was).

Nat Butcher

[TheLoneRooster]

Nat Butcher

Thanks JB, I can picture it now. FlamingRooster, I see your point and it explains why there was no action taken against Haas for collecting Nat.