From a SOO perspective its good news that Reynolds is able to play in the second round in Sydney. From other perspectives there still is a nasty taste in the mouth. The head of NRL football is Mr T Greenbourge who was CEO for Canterbury. And Reynolds gets a down grade! meaning he will miss minimum games for Canterbury. The Canterbury CEO, Mrs Castle, attended the meeting where Reynolds case was heard. After the decision was reached, Reynolds refused to speak to the media.In my opinion if any tackle deserved a Grading of Two, that tackle on Tate did so. Its odd also that no result has come forward as yet on the Canterbury players taking a dive in the game against Easts. They appeared to avoid the concussion rules. One rule for Canterbury another rule for the rest?
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
Replies
Yes, I do. And I also have been opposed to having exclusively ex players deciding these things. They should be supported by people with legal expertise et al. But what is your point? That ex players could not make a wrong decision or be influenced? Please explain.
I saw that incident and agree it was more dangerous position than Tate. But why was not a penalty given? And why have the review committee not charged Thurston for a dangerous tackle? The refereeing was pro-Queensland all night, with the last 10 minutes or so outrageous, but the Tate tackle demanded action-he could have broken his neck. And so could have Jarryd Hayne. All in all a very unsatisfactory situation culminating in Canterbury smelling like roses to some but smelling like cow droppings to others.
That`s the official version of events. But what really happened?
1) The decision favoured massively the Bulldogs.
2) I dont believe that the tackle looked worse than it was.
3) Tate landed on the back of his head just before his back hit the ground.
4) Agree with you entirely about Scott.
Quit hunting for UFO's Robert. What Wayne said is 100% correct.
That said, there's little point in the NRL coming out and saying that they will heavily penalise dangerous tackles, then fail to carry through with it.
Don't forget, Jordan McLean got 7 weeks for a very innocuous 'assist' in a tackle that had disastrous results. After it's own directive to essentially take more seriously its duty of care to the players, what do you think would happen to the NRL from a legal perspective if those tackles from Tariq Sims, Beau Falloon, Greg Bird and Josh Reynolds led to a massive spinal injury??
I can see the lawyers lining up from here!!
Bourbon Man some people refuse to see what is before their eyes--"none are so blind than those who refuse to see." How do YOU know that Wayne is 100% correct? Any evidence for that or is it just your belief? Anyone is entitled to believe what they wont but that does not make it factual. Other than your first sentence, you are preaching to the converted when aimed at me. I agree all those points and more power to you for that. Your last sentence, re lawyers, has a touch of UFO hunting yourself!! But I agree with it.
hahah Robert is hunting for UFO's!!! Why do aliens always visit people who live in trailer parks???
Because they want to get to the other side! The other side ---get it? haha.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next