So in your opinion, two identical tackles should be graded completely differently if one player gets injured and one doesn't?
The difference in grading should reflect the difference in the consequence. The tackles obviously aren't identical if one results in injury and the other doesn't. The alternative is judging based on potential for harm. Why then shouldn't a swinging arm which is so high that it misses the target not be reprimanded, as in the example I mentioned involving Gallen? If he connected, Nielsen could've been knocked out cold.
Yeah agree with magic and Alec here, that's tackle was pretty brutal. What's the difference in doing a spear tackle but the cunt doesn't get hurt and that? Definitely a dangerous throw but 7 weeks is a bit much, maybe like 2-5 or something.
What's the difference between throwing a lazy arm out and missing to throwing an arm out and hitting someone then?
It wasn't a 7 week charge though, it was a Grade 4, with a fuckload of carry over points and previous offenses.
Worst bit was he took 0 interest in returning him safely to the ground. Just threw him over his shoulder pretty much
The potential of injury for the one that misses is maybe some wind burn if he swings hard enough, for the one that hits maybe a broken jaw or a fractured eye socket. Are you saying you're in support of the following; Frank Pritchard - Grade 1 (David Simmons left the field with injury) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d3feuQiUYU Manu Vatuvei - No charge (Tonga played on) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpNFW14TB0c No difference in the incidents yet because of the lottery of an injury one gets a suspension one doesn't.
Once de gois had been sent in motion it would have required a monster effort to reverse the throw, it happened so quickly.
Personally, I don't think either should've been charged. They were both accidental, if a little careless afaic. Penalty sufficient. But more to the point. How do you not notice the fact that the chance of doing something dangerous at all is just as much a lottery as whether an injury occurs from a dangerous act? You imply it's absurd to base judgement on resulting injury. It's absolutely no different than judging it on random accidental contact. If you want to argue your point properly then please tell me how you can charge a player for doing something potentially dangerous like what Vatuvei did, but not what Gallen did to Nielsen. Gallen's was potentially just as dangerous. And one could argue intent given that Gallen missed his head completely, that's how high his swinging arm was.
I'm saying they should both be penalised, as should something like Gallens attempted arm on Nielsen that MF keeps bringing up. There was only one way that was going to end if Gallen connected. I'm off the opinion that you've got to punish these things before the injury happens, not because an injury happens.
I've tipped the Sharkies all 3 rounds so far. Of most of the squads I reckon their's is one of the better ones to cause an upset.
