NRL just turned itself into touch football

If the judiciary is going to be consistent then most of the best tackles are illegal

For example see

Many of which are exactly the same as Evans

Evans was told that he chose a high risk tackle when other options were available. That means he should not have made that style of tackle. Since other options are always available and a risky/dangerous tackle is illegal regardless of whether the player gets hurt or not, it is a logical conclusion that most of the greatest tackles this year and other years are grade two careless tackles and the tackler should be sinned binned and suspended. Also Evans tackles are in plain view on a player who is looking ahead. Tafuas are usually suprise attacks so evan more dangerous.

NRL must now be consistent and all these dangerous tackles must get grade two charges.

There is no way Evans can know if the player will brace or fall into his tackle head first. So it is the choice of making this type of tackle that is wrong. It is a dangerous tackle and must be treated like a shoulder charge. Be consistent NRL an ban your own game.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Email me when people reply –


  • Absurd decision. How did Evans actually do anything to contribute to the result in that tackle? He was merely trying to effect a front on tackle with no swinging arm. Compare that to the tackle by Hargreaves I agree that was an accident too but at least in that tackle Hargreaves has contributed to the dangerous situation by swinging his arm. And he got off! 

    The NRL prosecutors argument should have been laughed at. Any tackle can be approached a few different ways but as long as the way you are attempting a tackle is legal why should one way be preferred to another by a player? Is he saying he should have made a legs tackle? Those aren’t the rules!

  • Maybe Gus, was right. This softness we have in the NRL will eventually destroy the game over the next 20 years. He also blames lawyers (sorry Michael). 

    Michael, you're a lawyer, what is your take on Ghabar's arguments.

    I am a little unsure whether Nick Ghabar, Evans counsel, properly tackled all of NRL counsel Peter McGrath's arguments on Evan's tackle, who said:

    "It’s a high level of force ... he went for the high risk marginal tackle when there were other options. I suggest [Parker’s] lost consciousness from the high impact and force directly to his headas footage of Parker’s eyes closing on impact is shown.

    Ghabar "compared [Evans' tackle] to a Waerea-Hargreaves tackle from last year and a Matt Lodge one as well" and then noted that "Evans' first contact with Parker is to the Manly centre’s left shoulder, and then up into his head."

    Ghabar is not all that convincing to me. Evans tackle looks like he hits both the shoulders and jaw area - closer to simultaneously.

    Really, I think Parker also contributed to his loss of consciousness by falling into the tackle, with his a portion of head hitting Evans' shoulder.

    You can't stop players using "high force": It's a high force game. I think that made Evans tackle sound more intentionally reckless.




    On the other hand JWH's counsel James McLeod successfully argued Liam Knight contributed to the incident and asked: What more could Waerea-Hargreaves have reasonably done in the circumstances?" 

    Maybe the same applied to Kane.

    What was Kane meant to do - tackle without force, crouch down and get whacked in the head, not try and do a ball and all tackle? There was no swinging arm. He's a tall man. Packer contributed.

    Anyway, it's just another neccessary evil of the game.

    • I didn’t like Ghabars arguments. I’m actually familiar with him and he’s not the absolute gun Barrister the media have portrayed him as. He’s a dime a dozen young Torts Barrister. 

      I would have approached it from the argument of what actual careless act did Evans commit? There was no swinging arm, no attempt at a shoulder charge. It was just a routine tackle that Evans would attempt on nearly every occasion. The only difference here is that the attacker dipped at the moment of impact causing a sudden change of height difference. 

      I would also argue that if you punish Evans for that tackle you are setting an impossibly high standard for taller players and creating a precedent which teams and coaches can take advantage of to gain penalties. Essentially a kind of ‘flood gates” argument 

      • Michael, Mate, your argument sounds far more convincing to me than Ghabar's. Maybe he's cheaper.

        I'm glad it's not just me, that thought our counsel's argument was lacking. And he's a hot shot?

        We need better representation in future. 

        JWH's counsel seemed to me far more on point, logical and convincing. 

        I haven't calculated all the figures, up to date, but since 2017 Raiders and Souths would probably have the most weeks in suspensions. Warriors have probbly have the least weeks' suspension per charge ratio. We're not too shocking when it comes to judiciary records over last few years.

  • Manly player Brad Parker, puts himself in a dangerous position by transferring his weight to his Right foot, lowering his body height by trying to beat Kane (A defender)  inside his Right shoulder. The video clearly shows Kane hitting Brad in shoulder knocking Brad off his feet

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read