2018 Brisbane Broncos Thread

surmo13 wrote:Not foul play whether he meant to or not, he ran though and took the legs out from under an airborne defender and landed him on his head... what you must be saying is if Moylan was looking at Isaako instead of the ball, you think the contact is fine anyway? Because we’ve now, just in the last 2 weeks, had three situations in which players playing at the ball have made dangerous contact with an opposition player while doing so, and all 3 have been penalised, which, once again, confirms that if the contact warrants a penalty, it will be given a penalty, regardless of intention.

what?
Took the legs out of an airborne defender and he landed on his head... ?? they collided in the air when both attacking the ball, what the fuck are you watching. Moylan was going forward and Isaako was going up. By your logic, Roberts should be penalised too for being under Isaako, because him being there accidentally put Isaako in a dangerous position too.

and what? I have been saying that because he was playing at the ball, and had his eyes on the ball literally the whole time, and was a realistic chance of getting the ball, didnt get there early, didnt tackle him in the air - it shouldnt have been a penalty.

If he not looking at the ball, ie not playing at it (Like DCE), it would have been worth a penalty and we would never have mentioned it again.
The situations were different!! Crazy you think that just because a ball was in the air it must be the same thing

ryno_ wrote:

Remebering my comment was in the context of Mansour getting belted by Rapana and not the Moylan incident. I don't think anybody is claiming Rapana was actively trying to decapitate Mansour but he hit him high. Regardless of if he meant to or not, the outcome of his actions was an illegal act. Its a penalty everyday of the week.

Foul play, committed without intent, is still foul play. Penalties/charges/suspensions exist to get foul play out of the game.

Genuine question here, based on not being able to fathom your (and other's) logic; but why exactly do you think we have careless/reckless/intentional gradings, if not to deter both accidental and intentional foul play?

Exactly, totally agree.
It was most likely an accident, but it was still an elbow to the head.
Where as moylan was trying to get the ball, no foul play involved and was just penalised because it looked ugly.

If Moylan catches the ball not Isaako and everything else plays out the same does Moylan get penalised for successfully contesting a ball in the air ?

No Worries wrote:If Moylan catches the ball not Isaako and everything else plays out the same does Moylan get penalised for successfully contesting a ball in the air ?

Exactly. Thats why its so dumb. Or if it plays out exactly how it did, but moylan ends up on his back and Isaako doesnt - does Isaako get penalised? Its laughable to me, to try and justify that penalty.
If they both Land on their backs who gets penalised? It was an mid air ball contest that ended badly, with zero foul play in it what so ever. He was essentially penalised for attacking the ball too hard.

If Cherry-Evans come down with the ball or Holmes get out of the way there’s no penalty, if Rapana misses Mansour or he gets his head out of the way there’s no penalty, if wishes were fishes the world would be an ocean.

surmo13 wrote:If Cherry-Evans come down with the ball or Holmes get out of the way there’s no penalty, if  Rapana misses Mansour or he gets his head out of the way there’s no penalty, if wishes were fishes the world would be an ocean.

says the bloke who threw up a hypothetical scenario that was DIFFERENT to the original, then when something similar to the hypothetical happened, claimed it proved his point

IF there was foul play (intentional or not) it would have deserved the penalty.
There wasnt, so it should have been Knock on Isaako.

Hey everyone. Griffin got sacked maybe we can discuss that now not something that happened couple of weeks ago and that only because it was the Broncos that benefited from it it’s an apparent issue

Mighty Fishes wrote:Hey everyone. Griffin got sacked maybe we can discuss that now not something that happened couple of weeks ago and that only because it was the Broncos that benefited from it it’s an apparent issue

Is there a panthers thread? May e post the news in there and I’ll be happy to talk about it

This thread is starting to remind me of Sportal a little too much for my liking...

Open your bloody Panfis thread @SI , I’d ask no worries but he’s very busy being under appreciated.

ryno_ wrote:

Remebering my comment was in the context of Mansour getting belted by Rapana and not the Moylan incident. I don't think anybody is claiming Rapana was actively trying to decapitate Mansour but he hit him high. Regardless of if he meant to or not, the outcome of his actions was an illegal act. Its a penalty everyday of the week.

Foul play, committed without intent, is still foul play. Penalties/charges/suspensions exist to get foul play out of the game.

Genuine question here, based on not being able to fathom your (and other's) logic; but why exactly do you think we have careless/reckless/intentional gradings, if not to deter both accidental and intentional foul play?

Regardless of which incident, I just completely disagree with the focus on outcome and not the intent.

Accident or not, the (clear) difference for mine and it does relate to intent IMO; is whether an accident happened during the course of a typical/genuine rugby league act.....or during a stupid, reckless and thus unnecessary act.

Also need to differentiate between penalties and charges/suspensions because I'm happy for a team to cop a penalty if a 'genuine' accident hinders the other team; but would be filthy if (usually because the other bloke gets injured) a players is suspended following that.

For mine both Moylan and Rapana were completely fine in that regard.

Both hindered the other team but were both purely accidental during the course of genuine rugby league act.....so a charge/suspension would do nothing as a deterrent.

Also to answer your question specifically; I honestly think the reason they have grading is to provide some black and white guidance and consistency when it comes to charges.
I personally don't like that approach and would prefer they went back to subjective gut feel.....but I do understand in this day and age of being so process driven, this is no chance of occurring.
As a compromise, they should (as a minimum) clear up the terminology given very few people (myself included) understand the difference between careless and reckless.

I threw this up before, but I think it's been ignored.

Doesn't the advantage go to the defending team? Is there a rule regarding kicks here?

Anyway - Isaako was in the air. Moylan wasn't. Isaako caught it.

It was a penalty - maybe not the most clear cut ruling in the world, but anyone who's taking offence is surely taking offence just to post in this thread..... there was no sin bin, there was no "on report", and a bloke got cartwheeled in mid-air.

If nothing else - Isaako caught the ball in the air. Moylan didn't leave the ground, and skittled Isaako - WHO HAD POSSESSION, putting Isaako in a dangerous position. If the kick was at the other end of the field, with Isaako taking it on his try line, in mid air, and Moylan took him out with eyes on the ball only.... who cares? It's a penalty.

Hence my question - is there an onus on who kicks the ball? Or field position?

I've had a great boozy lunch. Feel free to enlighten me.

dasherhalo wrote:I threw this up before, but I think it's been ignored.

Doesn't the advantage go to the defending team? Is there a rule regarding kicks here?

Anyway - Isaako was in the air. Moylan wasn't. Isaako caught it.

It was a penalty - maybe not the most clear cut ruling in the world, but anyone who's taking offence is surely taking offence just to post in this thread.....  there was no sin bin, there was no "on report", and a bloke got cartwheeled in mid-air.

If nothing else - Isaako caught the ball in the air. Moylan didn't leave the ground, and skittled Isaako - WHO HAD POSSESSION, putting Isaako in a dangerous position. If the kick was at the other end of the field, with Isaako taking it on his try line, in mid air, and Moylan took him out with eyes on the ball only.... who cares? It's a penalty.

Hence my question - is there an onus on who kicks the ball? Or field position?

I've had a great boozy lunch. Feel free to enlighten me.

I have no idea if there is an advantage towards either way regarding those kicks, but generally if its an attacking kick, the defender is allowed to tackle the attacker in the air where as the attacker isnt allowed to tackle the defender in the air.

Took offence?.. or commented on it and then have had a debate about it since? Sounds to me like, this poster has taken offence to it and has posted just to post

And no, moylan was in the air, he does a leap at the end, he isnt high but he's in the air. Thats clear. They are both going for the ball and he makes a great catch, and in the process of the contest they collide - and because he is higher - gets flipped when he is hit. Its play on. Doesnt matter where it is on the field, there was nothing wrong with it.

Also, what everyone has missed - it should have been a penalty against Roberts for trying to take moylan out. Roberts running moyan off the ball, then gets in the way of isaako - have a look. Roberts does just as much put Isaako "in the dangerous position". How does Isaako get away with no blame too, thats the risk you take if you go up in the air to contest a ball. A fair contest that ends badly is very much a risk.

https://wwos.nine.com.au/2018/07/26/21/59/nrl-paul-vautin-goes-off-on-matt-moylan-jermaine-isaako-penalty

Sorry for posting in the bronco thread about a thing that happened in a bronco game fellas! my bad
Like sportal? lol no one is attacking each other, we are just dragging out debate over an actual contentious call - because Im right and they are wrong

The reason I was saying that refs comment was fucked is because rapana wasn't committing foul play, he wasn't even looking to make contact with the player.

If a runner has a head clash with a defender, the defender gets knocked out, blood everywhere the same logic would require the attacker to be penalised. Contact with the head, you come off best so you must be penalised despite there being zero intent.

Pieman wrote:

Exactly, totally agree.
It was most likely an accident, but it was still an elbow to the head.
Where as moylan Rapana was trying to get the ball, no foul play involved and was just penalised because it looked ugly.

Fixed

Fortitude wrote:The reason I was saying that refs comment was fucked is because rapana wasn't committing foul play, he wasn't even looking to make contact with the player.

If a runner has a head clash with a defender, the defender gets knocked out, blood everywhere the same logic would require the attacker to be penalised. Contact with the head, you come off best so you must be penalised despite there being zero intent.

but a head clash isnt illegal.. its never a penalty (Unless its Napa trying to make a tackle against Korbin sims) therefore the analogy makes no sense mate
Coming in to contact with someones head with an elbow is illegal, Intentional or not. There was foul play, it was the elbow to the head - even though he was just going for a charge down or what ever.

Pieman wrote:

but a head clash isnt illegal.. its never a penalty (Unless its Napa trying to make a tackle against Korbin sims) therefore the analogy makes no sense mate
Coming in to contact with someones head with an elbow is illegal, Intentional or not. There was foul play, it was the elbow to the head - even though he was just going for a charge down or what ever.

IM not asking this as a smartarse rhetorical question, but is that the rule? arm/shoulder/hand to the head constitutes a penalty? I thought it was just 'contact to the head'.

In saying this I know that you cant go for a charge down and 'accidently' take the legs out of the kicker. alah Graham/Arey.

Fortitude wrote:The reason I was saying that refs comment was fucked is because rapana wasn't committing foul play, he wasn't even looking to make contact with the player.

If a runner has a head clash with a defender, the defender gets knocked out, blood everywhere the same logic would require the attacker to be penalised. Contact with the head, you come off best so you must be penalised despite there being zero intent.

If there's a head clash, the defender should be penalised.

A player is guilty of misconduct if he:

2. ‘When affecting or attempting to affect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally,
recklessly or carelessly’

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make the argument that a head clash isn't the result of careless behavior, or worse.

ryno_ wrote:

If there's a head clash, the defender should be penalised.



You'd be pretty hard pressed to make the argument that a head clash isn't the result of careless behavior, or worse.

Yeah after rereading my post it was pretty dumb. Didn't Napa get penalised the other day for that? or was is Sims?

Fortitude wrote:

Yeah after rereading my post it was pretty dumb. Didn't Napa get penalised the other day for that? or was is Sims?  

Napa got binned for it on the origin team announcement-eve.

Fortitude wrote:

Yeah after rereading my post it was pretty dumb. Didn't Napa get penalised the other day for that? or was is Sims?  

generally, head clashes are considered "just an accident", because they are unfortunate but sometimes just unavoidable.
I mean, you would be hard pressed to get anyone who has ever played the game or been around the game in real life to agree "that was his fault, it was reckless and careless and he should be penalised" when all player x has done is go in to make a good fair tackle, and his head hits the other blokes head. I mean, you can be bent over at the hip trying to make a tackle and all it takes is a sidestep from a player and boom - accidental headclash. Sometimes, just no one is at fault.

Elbowing someone in the head is always a penalty, intentional or not.

I reckon so anyway mate!