the tackle
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2523
- Joined: Mon 27 Jun 2005 1:27pm
- Location: Abiding
- Has thanked: 171 times
- Been thanked: 375 times
the tackle
I don't understand why there has been no talk of mcguane getting sited.
If that was not unduly rough play not sure what is.
The ball was metres away and he held Nick and drove him into the ground.
I though there would have been more comments in the press on it. If doing that to a player only results in a free kick tehn I think that is wrong.
I am all infavour f tough hard footy but there was nothing tough about pinning a players arms and driving him into the ground.
And if they go on the damage done by the unduly rough play he must get a tleast 2 weeks
fqf
If that was not unduly rough play not sure what is.
The ball was metres away and he held Nick and drove him into the ground.
I though there would have been more comments in the press on it. If doing that to a player only results in a free kick tehn I think that is wrong.
I am all infavour f tough hard footy but there was nothing tough about pinning a players arms and driving him into the ground.
And if they go on the damage done by the unduly rough play he must get a tleast 2 weeks
fqf
Do you oppose general opinion just for the sake of being different? Its getting rather boring and old seeing you disagree with everything anyone writes.plugger66 wrote:Fancy tackling someone without the ball. Wait isnt that holding the man. Yes a free kick and that is it.satchmo wrote:Especially not the ball.plugger66 wrote: Nothing in it at all.
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5509
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 480 times
- Contact:
What I don't get, and this is where we need to get smarter, is that if Riewoldt was clearly injured why didn't someone else take the kick?
It was also a case of the umpire not playing the advantage rule. Hayes was away and running into an open goal. But the over officious moron in green decides to penalise the side and make a clearly inured player take a kick.
Riewoldt came off the ground as soon as he had the shot.
Poor decision making all round by the umps and the Saints.
It was also a case of the umpire not playing the advantage rule. Hayes was away and running into an open goal. But the over officious moron in green decides to penalise the side and make a clearly inured player take a kick.
Riewoldt came off the ground as soon as he had the shot.
Poor decision making all round by the umps and the Saints.
- Spinner
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Re: the tackle
Caused unnecessary injury.....But the drop kicks in the media don't even mention it.terry smith rules wrote:I don't understand why there has been no talk of mcguane getting sited.
If that was not unduly rough play not sure what is.
The ball was metres away and he held Nick and drove him into the ground.
I though there would have been more comments in the press on it. If doing that to a player only results in a free kick tehn I think that is wrong.
I am all infavour f tough hard footy but there was nothing tough about pinning a players arms and driving him into the ground.
And if they go on the damage done by the unduly rough play he must get a tleast 2 weeks
fqf
Its pathetic. He didn't have possession. McGuane should get 2 weeks for it.
Last edited by Spinner on Sun 04 May 2008 12:41pm, edited 1 time in total.
- AlpineStars
- Club Player
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006 7:44pm
- Location: Aspendale
- Contact:
I already posted on another post the only intention of the Richmond player was to injure Reiwoldt the ball was well gone and it was disgraceful pinned arms and slammed into the deck there was a video distributed to clubs by the AFL regarding these tackles so I excpect it will be looked at.
Wake me up when September ends.
When it is crap I do. Dont read it or is it a rule that you cant be boring.SaintBot wrote:Do you oppose general opinion just for the sake of being different? Its getting rather boring and old seeing you disagree with everything anyone writes.plugger66 wrote:Fancy tackling someone without the ball. Wait isnt that holding the man. Yes a free kick and that is it.satchmo wrote:Especially not the ball.plugger66 wrote: Nothing in it at all.
When Roo looked like he wasn't going to take the kick, the Ump actually signalled to Lenny to take it, but Roo obviously decided that he was ok to take it.Life Long Saint wrote:What I don't get, and this is where we need to get smarter, is that if Riewoldt was clearly injured why didn't someone else take the kick?
It was also a case of the umpire not playing the advantage rule. Hayes was away and running into an open goal. But the over officious moron in green decides to penalise the side and make a clearly inured player take a kick.
Riewoldt came off the ground as soon as he had the shot.
Poor decision making all round by the umps and the Saints.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun 03 Oct 2004 3:05pm
- Location: Brisbane
Yet another example of poor judgment by the skipper - he lacks confidence kicking for goals at the best of times let alone when he's injured his knee - if he was smart he would have opted for Lenny to take the kick.spyglass wrote:When Roo looked like he wasn't going to take the kick, the Ump actually signalled to Lenny to take it, but Roo obviously decided that he was ok to take it.
Re: the tackle
agreedSpinner wrote:Caused unnecessary injury.....But the drop kicks in the media don't even mention it.terry smith rules wrote:I don't understand why there has been no talk of mcguane getting sited.
If that was not unduly rough play not sure what is.
The ball was metres away and he held Nick and drove him into the ground.
I though there would have been more comments in the press on it. If doing that to a player only results in a free kick tehn I think that is wrong.
I am all infavour f tough hard footy but there was nothing tough about pinning a players arms and driving him into the ground.
And if they go on the damage done by the unduly rough play he must get a tleast 2 weeks
fqf
Its pathetic. He didn't have possession. McGuane should get 2 weeks for it.
![Exclamation :!:](./images/smilies/icon_exclaim.gif)
definatly "UNDULY ROUGH PLAY"
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 12:29am
- Location: everywhere
- Has thanked: 47 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
plugger66 wrote:When it is crap I do. Dont read it or is it a rule that you cant be boring.SaintBot wrote:Do you oppose general opinion just for the sake of being different? Its getting rather boring and old seeing you disagree with everything anyone writes.plugger66 wrote:Fancy tackling someone without the ball. Wait isnt that holding the man. Yes a free kick and that is it.satchmo wrote:Especially not the ball.plugger66 wrote: Nothing in it at all.
Plugger like a lot others I am getting a little sick of your dribble. It is also actually a free kick if you punch someone in the head BUT WAIT you can also get reported for it. Perhaps every team can target all the opposition key players and pound them into the ground when they haven't got the ball - after all it is only free kick for holding the man. That should make things interesting.
This incident with Nick was the same unecessary act as the one done on Lenny by one of the the KRAY twins. I suppose you thought that was fair enough too !
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
- perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9022
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
The incident is worth looking at but relies on the panel reaching a conclusion about the player's motives, which they may be reluctant to do. I have no doubt, like others, that he meant to injure Nick - and he succeeded. That is Unduly Rough Play and deserves time.
I also agree that Nick showed woeful judgement in taking the kick. Not only was he never going to kick it properly but he risked doing a "Buckenara" in the process since he injured his left knee.
I also agree that Nick showed woeful judgement in taking the kick. Not only was he never going to kick it properly but he risked doing a "Buckenara" in the process since he injured his left knee.
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5509
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 480 times
- Contact:
Maybe he was concussed too.spyglass wrote:When Roo looked like he wasn't going to take the kick, the Ump actually signalled to Lenny to take it, but Roo obviously decided that he was ok to take it.
His expectation exceeds his ability at the best of times...It would have been goal of the century had he kicked that on one leg. That was clearly not one of his smarter decisions.
- Carl Mynott
- Club Player
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:30pm
Just ignore the idiot......................i doSaintBot wrote:Do you oppose general opinion just for the sake of being different? Its getting rather boring and old seeing you disagree with everything anyone writes.plugger66 wrote:Fancy tackling someone without the ball. Wait isnt that holding the man. Yes a free kick and that is it.satchmo wrote:Especially not the ball.plugger66 wrote: Nothing in it at all.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
The more things change the more they stay the same
Idiot. Very clever. You must have finished year 5 at least to think of something like that.Carl Mynott wrote:Just ignore the idiot......................i doSaintBot wrote:Do you oppose general opinion just for the sake of being different? Its getting rather boring and old seeing you disagree with everything anyone writes.plugger66 wrote:Fancy tackling someone without the ball. Wait isnt that holding the man. Yes a free kick and that is it.satchmo wrote:Especially not the ball.plugger66 wrote: Nothing in it at all.
- Carl Mynott
- Club Player
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:30pm
It's a conclusion i came to after reading 3000 of your posts........plugger66 wrote:Idiot. Very clever. You must have finished year 5 at least to think of something like that.Carl Mynott wrote:Just ignore the idiot......................i doSaintBot wrote:Do you oppose general opinion just for the sake of being different? Its getting rather boring and old seeing you disagree with everything anyone writes.plugger66 wrote:Fancy tackling someone without the ball. Wait isnt that holding the man. Yes a free kick and that is it.satchmo wrote:Especially not the ball.plugger66 wrote: Nothing in it at all.
keep up the consistency.....
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
The more things change the more they stay the same
saintwill66 wrote:Yet another example of poor judgment by the skipper - he lacks confidence kicking for goals at the best of times let alone when he's injured his knee - if he was smart he would have opted for Lenny to take the kick.spyglass wrote:When Roo looked like he wasn't going to take the kick, the Ump actually signalled to Lenny to take it, but Roo obviously decided that he was ok to take it.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
"Yet another example of poor judgment"? So what are the hundreds of other examples? Your tone implies there are many indeed.
I don't think Lenny would have made the distance, personally.
Roo's kick, with his injured leg, did so easily, was just off-line.
Probably he didn't want to believe the extent of the injury until then, looked pretty keen to stay on before that, but went straight off grimacing after he tried the kick.
Ignoring Me. Confused. And i'm an idiot you read 3000 of my posts.Carl Mynott wrote:It's a conclusion i came to after reading 3000 of your posts........plugger66 wrote:Idiot. Very clever. You must have finished year 5 at least to think of something like that.Carl Mynott wrote:Just ignore the idiot......................i doSaintBot wrote:Do you oppose general opinion just for the sake of being different? Its getting rather boring and old seeing you disagree with everything anyone writes.plugger66 wrote:Fancy tackling someone without the ball. Wait isnt that holding the man. Yes a free kick and that is it.satchmo wrote:Especially not the ball.plugger66 wrote: Nothing in it at all.
keep up the consistency.....
![]()
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10598
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 7:04pm
- Location: North
- Has thanked: 1011 times
- Been thanked: 1055 times