2018 Brisbane Broncos Thread

If thinking that a defender should be held accountable when they smash a ball carriers face in, accidentally or not, intent or not, gets me an eye roll emoji, ill happily cop that.

Baffles me how thinking that the rule about defenders being responsible for not contacting the head being upheld is somehow a controversial position

RL Rules.
Section 15
1.b) a player is guilty of misconduct if he, when effecting a tackle or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent, intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

Clear cut, obvious penalty.
Q. E. Mother fucking. D

ryno_ wrote:When GI flattened the fuck out of Dean Young, who was falling at time of tackle, it was the tacklers responsibility to avoid contact with the oppositions head. Now it's all good and just an accident because he may or may not have been lifting an arm slightly?

Defender smashed the ball carriers face. Easy penalty, fair sin bin.

there is difference between nailing someone on purpose (or not) in the head with a shoulder, and trying to do that and having a head clash.

ryno_ wrote:RL Rules.
Section 15
1.b) a player is guilty of misconduct if he, when effecting a tackle or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent, intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

Clear cut, obvious penalty.
Q. E. Mother fucking. D

cool - does it say "accidentally" anywhere? No? sweet
This is fucking sheer nonsense I cant believe its even still a thing. Its so clear cut that its an accidental head clash its not funny.

surmo13 wrote:

call was made at the time, we received the benefits of it

exactly - the incorrect call - indicated by the match review committee throwing it out

If it was his shoulder, arm, hand, ass, dick - I would agree with you. It was an accidental head clash though, so no. Deadset lunacy.
If a player is about to get belted by someone, and they get his with a head, leading, purposeful headbutt into oblivion, then i will agree with you.

But thats not what this was.

fark me! crazy

Pieman wrote:

cool - does it say "accidentally" anywhere? No? sweet

Whats that got to do with the price of tea in China?

It was careless. Actions that are initiated which result in a head clash cannot be anything less then careless. Correct call on the field and common sense from the review panel that it doesn't go any further.

"Not Careless"

Spare me.

yep keep showing the still frame, it just makes you look more fucking stupid.
As already said, I dont agree but could cop a penalty for it because they penalise things that look ugly all the time, whether its illegal or not. But a sin bin is close to the worst decision this year.

So according to that sentence from Ryno - any headclash is nothing less than "careless". Lol. No mate, there are things called accidents, where no one is at fault and they are just unfortunate.

The clincher for me is that first contact made by Napa was with Sims head. Sims wasn’t falling. It wasn’t a head clash due to whiplash or something caused by the contact of a tackle. It is an astounding wrong decision as far as im concerned by the MRP. Should have got a careless grade 2 or 3 imo.

Can’t believe that anyone says otherwise personally. Imagine if that tackle occurs in the GF to say Matt Dufty running it out from the ingoal at 16 all in the 79th minute. There are people saying if he drops it when his jaw is Broken then it should be play on and if Billy Slater dives on it the premiership winning try should be allowed? You guys are off your head.

Pieman wrote:So according to that sentence from Ryno - any headclash is nothing less than "careless".

Is... Is that controversial?

How 2 blokes can smash their heads together and it not be at least "careless" on the part of the one whose responsible for not touching the other's head is a pretty bold arguement but good on you for sticking with it. It's not some shared responsibility they both dropped the ball on - its the defenders job to not impact the head and he failed at that through his carelessness. Accidental, sure. But that's not a defence.

You've said it should be a penalty. So you agree it's against the rules and therefore defined as either intentional, reckless or careless. Because that's what the rules say.

But it shouldn't be a sin bin because it "wasn't careless" so now is back to being _not_ any of those 3 and now not against the rules.

Fuck me, you don't even know your own point anymore, you're so focused on being contrary, you've tied yourself in knots.

I said my opinion of the Napa incident directly after the game and I'll stick with it.

I personally can understand/handle the softening of the game but what I can't stand is reactive decisions made based on fear of litigation, with no due process in terms of actually mitigating any risk.....basically making decisions for the sake of making decisions (probably to escape media scrutiny).

At least I am consistent (particularly when I could have been biased and sided with my team on this one).
And that's more than I can say from some of the others around here that are usually outraged whenever this sort of incident happens.

Having said all that and regardless of my opinion, by the letter of the law, the correct call was made and Napa is fairly lucky to escape suspension IMO.

As RYNO pointed out, quite clearly this is reckless/careless misconduct; however further to that and as per Section 16 , Clause 6:

In the event of misconduct by a player, the Referee shall, at his discretion, caution, temporarily suspend for ten minutes, or dismiss the offender.

So while I don't necessarily agree that incidental head contact should automatically be misconduct, it appears this was (by the letter of the law) the correct decision and Sutton was well within his rights to send Napa off.

As an aside (and I recall someone mentioned the Soliola/Slater incident earlier), my understanding was that this discretion to send off interpretation mainly arose out of that incident because on that particular occasion, Soliola was suspended heavily following the match but during the game Melbourne were disadvantaged (losing Slater) while Canberra had no disadvantage.

Wouldn't have mattered too much in the Sims/Napa incident but had it happened at the start of the game and to a key playmaker, then I can understand why the ref should be allowed to sin bin or send off a player for misconduct.

here's two more to add to the 'braindead' column for ya Ice, turns out my opinion isn't isolated after all:

Wayne Bennett blasts the NRL after controversial Dylan Napa tackle leaves Korbin Sims with a broken jaw
PETER BADEL, EXCLUSIVE, The Courier-MailMay 20, 2018 8:00pm

WAYNE Bennett has launched a savage attack on the NRL and Maroons enforcer Dylan Napa over the controversial tackle that has left Broncos prop Korbin Sims nursing a broken jaw.

The Courier-Mail can reveal Bennett has contacted the NRL to express his fury, slamming the league for failing to protect Sims, who underwent surgery on Saturday night in another crushing injury blow for the Broncos.

Bennett was supported by NRL legend and Maroons selector Darren Lockyer, who called for Queensland prop Napa to change his tackling style.

Sims will miss four to six weeks after his sickening collision with Napa which saw the Roosters hitman placed on report in Brisbane’s 28-22 victory last Friday night.

Napa was booked for leading with his head, but the NRL match-review committee did not charge him, clearing the prop to be named in the Queensland side next Monday for Origin I on June 6.

The decision has triggered outrage from Bennett, who lashed the NRL process and labelled Napa’s tackle “reckless” with no duty of care for Sims.

“Why hasn’t the game made Napa accountable,” Bennett fired.

“I know there will be a shitfight coming my way but I’m not backing away from it.

“I am not going to watch my players get broken jaws and remain silent.

“When you go before the judiciary, they will ask the player, ‘What was your duty of care?’

“Well ... where is Napa’s duty of care?

“Korbin has had to have surgery for a broken jaw because of Napa’s actions ... is this the look we want for our game?

“Napa could have been charged with a number of things. At its worst, it was reckless.

“This is the most ridiculous situation I have seen.”

Under a 22-page NRL laws-and-interpretations policy issued this season, there are eight ways in which a player can be found guilty of misconduct.

One such breach is “when affecting or attempting to affect a tackle (a player) makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly”.

This is what convinced NRL referee Gerard Sutton to place Napa on report. But the NRL match-review committee cleared Napa, alleging Sims’ change of direction was a factor in the collision.

“For the NRL to justify it by saying Sims changed direction is absolute nonsense,” Bennett said.

“Why are people blaming Korbin Sims?

“Korbin had every right under the rules to step and he probably saw Napa coming, so of course he is going to try and get out of the road.

“Tackle technique is about adjusting your tackle to the situation. If you don’t and you headhigh someone, you should pay a price.

“Napa was the solo-shooter coming out of the line. His arms were spread-eagled as wide as possible at time of contact. It’s an uncommon position.

“His head was intentionally pushed forward in front of his usual body position, so the only possible outcome was his head hitting Sims.

“He shot out of the line and planted his feet. The execution of the tackle was ordinary.

“Look at his attitude post-incident, Napa strutted around like a victor in a prized fight.

“There was no concern for his opponent.

Bennett claimed Napa’s tackle was much worse than Sam Thaiday’s finger-pull on Storm prop Jesse Bromwich last year which saw the Broncos veteran charged.

“There is a bias against the Broncos,” he said. “We won a game we weren’t supposed to win so that would have pissed off the Roosters even more.

“Last year, Sam pulled Jesse Bromwich’s finger. He was found guilty for contrary conduct.

“Are you telling me a finger pull is worse than Napa breaking Sims’ jaw with a reckless tackle?”

source: Courier Mail

surmo13 wrote:I like how people are trying to stress 'accidental', as if any foul play that occurs is on purpose, no-one actually trys to hit some-one in the head, it's all about intent,

Help me understand the difference between on purpose and intent ?? I'll get you started

intent
noun
noun: intent; plural noun: intents
1.
intention or purpose.

purpose
noun
noun: purpose; plural noun: purposes
1.
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
2.
Dumbest cunt ever

No Worries wrote:

Help me understand the difference between on purpose and intent ??  I'll get you started

intent
noun
noun: intent; plural noun: intents
1.
intention or purpose.

purpose
noun
noun: purpose; plural noun: purposes
1.
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
2.
Dumbest cunt ever

as in he didn't mean to hit him in the head on purpose, but his intent was not to effect a legimate tackle, but to charge in kamikaze style and do damage.

untill he starts talking like a prick at the end, Bennett does explain it pretty well


i'm still not sure its a sin bin, but thats probably more from a consistency point of view in that we can have reckless high tackles never treated that way (and not just soliola OSM, surgess levelled sezar a few weeks ago). Aside from punching, this probably still ends up being the only foul play sin bin all year. but maybe its more that others should be sin binned more then this one shouldn't, i dunno.

i think he should have been charged. its quite clearly a conspiracy against NSW's origin chances.

Penalty? Yes.
Sin Bin? Maybe.
Charged? Yes.

We're always saying that illegal acts should benefit those that they occur against so I don't have an issue with him being sin binned however it's a tough call to make.

However precedent is set when Nate Myles was allowed to do it for years with no penalty or caution.

There's a responsibility on the tackler to make sure things like this don't happen. Head clashes are different to going in with the point of your forehead and not even looking like you're going to go for a traditional tackle.

Bennett will be fined though.

--

I'm not one for conspiracy theories but is there any other stats for other teams which such a streak of wins under the one ref?

i bught up the nate myles thing originally but it was generally meant to be a throw away line because i know a few broncs fans used to defend him come origin time but i don't think anything
from a few years ago can be considered a precedent. realistically there is no difference between gallens punch on myles and scotts on walker. one was sent off for a game, one didn't get binned. times have changed a fair bit in a pretty short period.


agree bennett should/will be fined tho, claiming the MRP is bias against the broncos has to be treated as it would suggesting the refs are bias

Honeysett wrote:
I'm not one for conspiracy theories but is there any other stats for other teams which such a streak of wins under the one ref?

https://afltables.com/rl/misc/referees.html

that's a comprehensive list of referee stats since 1939, including best/worst penalty-counts and best/worst overall records for teams under certain refs, not sure if there's one just for current refs -

interesting to note that despite the supposed Sutton-Broncos connection, it doesn't rate a mention for overall w/l, if he refs us for 15 straight at Suncorp, that means we are a paltry 9-18 under him otherwise, i don't know why the stadium the game is played at would decide whether he wants us to win or lose.

and to answer your question, when that stat was unearthed, there was another one with it that the Roosters have won 11 straight at Allianz under Cecchin.

surmo13 wrote:

as in he didn't mean to hit him in the head on purpose, but his intent was not to effect a legitimate tackle, but to charge in kamikaze style and do damage.

So he intended to make an illegal tackle just not on purpose ?