Eels Blogs

Replies

• 

  Jacko June 8, 2010 at 10:06am

  The NRL are famous for it like you didn't know if a player gets hit high on report unless he is knocked out or something then they react it could be the same type of tackle or whatever but they react harder to the guilty player if an injury occurs.
• 

  Bourbon Man June 8, 2010 at 10:53am

  What makes that argument of Greg McCallum's particularly ridiculous is that the NRL's justification in trying to clean up niggling play like chicken wings tackles, grapple tackles, Slater-esque elbows and knees and Hayne's silly head tap is that "the kids might be watching"!
  
  Then they'll emulate it on the weekend and concerned mums will whisk up their precious broods and deposit them either in the AFL's Auskick program, or send them off to soccer.
  
  If the NRL feel the need that by not suspending Hayne, there'll be a plethora of kids down at the park this Saturday morning butting heads like Bighorn Sheep, then surely the same argument applies with respect to Slater's elbow (regardless of contact), or Thurston's spray.
  
  The reality is, the kids didn't emulate Thurston and no doubt won't emulate Hayne's 'Maori greeting' or Slater's catty elbow drop. Let's just get on and play football!
• 

  Michael Ericson June 8, 2010 at 2:03pm

  It is also ridiculous because the NRL picks and chooses when intent becomes an issue.
  
  For example it is my understanding that a player will recieve a lighter penalty for a head high shot if the opposing player fell or ducked into the tackle.
  
  However they will not apply the flipside of that, that is where a player goes intentionally high with a swinging arm but fails to make contact.
  
  In my opinion the review commitee should be looking for three things if they are serious about it;
  
  1. Illegal contact whether intentional or not.
  
  2. Dangerous conduct whether it makes contact or not.
  
  3. A combination of both dangerous play and contact.
• 

  Sir Col "THE NODDY MUSHROOM" June 8, 2010 at 4:37pm

  Slaters constant leading with his feet to "dislodge" the ball and prevent a try is well documented.
  He has been reported several times for the practice although he is yet to injure anyone.
  Misses with the feet and gets cited - misses with a vicious elbow at the head and he is squeeky clean.
  Go figure.
• 

  YDIDISAYIDO June 8, 2010 at 6:54pm

  My undertsanding is that where contact is not made intent is not an issue.
  
  In other words you could tackle with a swinging arm 100 times and if you miss every time you get off free.
  
  I am happy with these rules..... players get suspended for the lightest stuff in our game the last thing I want is rules where the judiciuary has more power to suspend.
  
  I think the whole Hayneslatergate was awesome and unfortuantely rare in our game... more please.
  • 

    Sir Col "THE NODDY MUSHROOM" > YDIDISAYIDO June 9, 2010 at 12:44pm

    Thats what I was trying to get at YDIDISAYIDO.
    slater going in with his feet and MISSES his opponent but gets cited
    Sometimes he makes inneffectual contact with the players arms but I do not remember him doing any harm to anyone.
    Possibly on one occassion his feet did contact the head area but again with no damage done.
    So was he cited on these occassions for making contact or for his intent? and I am sure he was on report for merely using this tactic on one occassion.
    Don't get me wrong I am not defending this slime I am trying to understand why INTENT in this case is considered and Intent with a swinging arm is not an issue.
    Lewis could have the same defense. With some tackles that get unbalanced and a player goes feet up. Did Lewis drive him into the ground (not from what I saw) so if the intent was not there to do damage why do players get time out.
    Jamie Soward got reported for a swinging leg against Inglis that made contact with nothing.
    
    VERY GREY AREA AND VERY INCONSISTENT RULINGS.
• 

  timbodavo June 8, 2010 at 7:04pm

  Im disgusted :-(
• 

  Michael Ericson June 9, 2010 at 9:28am

  So Hayne got off because the judiciary deemed his intent was not to cause serious harm.
  
  I am fine with that so long as the issue of intent is applied consistently. Now what about the Luke Lewis tackle, how can someone say that Luke Lewis had the intent to cause serious harm in the tackle whilst Hayne didn't with his illegal act?
  
  I am very happy that Hayne is playing (I might not even have watched if he wasn't) but I have to say that there is probably a political reason, i.e that the Hayne/Slater rivalry increases viewership and marketability while the presence of Luke Lewis does not affect it either way.
  • 

    Bourbon Man > Michael Ericson June 9, 2010 at 12:49pm

    Absolutely right ME, if this was a club match Hayne and Slater would both of copped one week!
    
    The NRL will attemp to justify this proposterous new interpretation of 'intent' by declaring it only applies to charges for striking. Luke Lewis obviously didn't 'intend' to hurt Hilder but was charged with a dangerous throw. They will argue that intent is an irrelevant issue with respect to dangerous tackles.
• 

  Michael Ericson June 9, 2010 at 1:53pm

  If I was a fan of a club other than Parramatta I reckon I would be feeling a little miffed. That is twice Hayne has got off striking charges where the video evidence didn't look real good for him.
  
  The NRL can pretend that there is no other agenda but the real factor here is, at a time when the game is under attack from AFL in the Golden West the NRL has now twice recognised the importance of a player like Hayne, playing in big games, has in attempting to counter these attacks.