Redman should get that printed on a T-shirt and wear it at the tribunal tonight
1 Like
That’s the issue. If the MRP are going to make these a real thing then they have to make all of them a real thing. But that is never the case.
4 Likes
Chose not to dispose of it when he had hands clear. Doing so was his responsibility, like leading with the head into a contest.
Wrong
1 Like
Wrong
2 Likes
Consider yourself amazed!
1 Like
Point 2 is good- prior opportunity means you must dispose legally.
Point 3 will tend to encourage players who are about to be tackled to just hang on to the ball without the requirement to at least try and keep the game dissimilar to rugby.
There needs to be the genuine attempt to dispose of the ball legally and if it’s not handballed or kicked out of the tackle it should be a free kick.
1 Like
Go Team holding posters to account when they are wrong. I am fine with that.
2 Likes
Don’t think it was Bruce that tackled Zerrett, was Bailey Smith I think.
1 Like
15 Likes
The problem with that is they never follow that rule. How could Selwood have got off or Buddy if it was potential to cause injury. They have never used that reasoning as far as I am aware although it should be the action not the outcome as all the commentators keep saying.
8 Likes
He’s saying Bruce tried to grab Merrett as Smith was flinging him to the ground (right of the tackle just before Merrett hits the deck)
1 Like
21 Likes
You know he won’t get off… they save their quota of rejected appeals for us.
They’ve had too many successfully appealed lately…
lol buddy elbows somebody in the head, no weeks
redman tackles someone, 1 week
corrupt piece of ■■■■ maggot ■■■■ league, what a pack of ■■■■■■■ ■■■■ head ■■■■ bags, they can stick their one week up their ■■■■ ■■■ ■■■■ holes, ■■■■■■■ scum.
13 Likes
Not true, he got a week and then appealed and got off. The rest of you’re post is factual.
What if
3.5
If player has not had prior (supposedly) and he drops it like a hot spud.
That is called play on! (Edit … and also a follow up free kick for holding the man to the hot spud dropper)
So why don’t players just drop it quickly, hopefully to advantage if they are clever enough and avoid an incorrect disposal.
I find the difference between incorrect disposal and dropping it without prior to be complete BS.
-
That messes with the tradition of marquee players being given forever and a day to dispose of the ball, (then being spun 720, dropping the ball, and play on being called.) I agree though, usually the 2nd action of a dangerous tackle happens after the ump has had the opportunity to blow the whistle for htb or a ball up, but for whatever reason has chosen not to, and the tackler thinks they need to take the ball carrier to ground to effect the tackle and have the ump actually call something.
-
Agree.
-
As has been said, without the requirement for a player to attempt to dispose of the ball (and the leeway for a failed attempt to not result in a free kick for incorrect disposal,) this means that the percentage play for a player tackled without prior to just hold on to the ball and force the ball up. We go from Aussie Rules being about always moving the ball on, to Rubgy being about always holding on to the ball.
-
Agree with the notion of umps being quicker on the whistle.
-
The nomination process is necessary due to the potential for blocking that the 3rd man up rule creates. Without the nomination process, players don’t know who they can and can’t get in the way of at a stoppage. If Max Gawn and Ben Brown are both present at a stoppage, there’s no nomination process, opposition players get in Brown’s way but leave Gawn alone because they think Gawn is rucking, suddenly Brown will be appealing for a free kick because he wasn’t allowed to contest the ruck. They need a nomination process so everyone knows whether it’s Gawn or Brown who’s rucking, so they know whose way they can and can’t get in.
The whole prior opportunity thing is a complete load of BS.
So many times you see guys theses days catch and release within a split second.
It’s how you get the running game going and catch your opponents out of position.
So when someone takes time to think about their options and isn’t real quick on the uptake and they get smashed,
Holding the Ball.
Nup …. No prior.
The rule should be … if it was at all possible to dispose of it, then it’s holding the ball.
The no prior should be saved for those rare circumstances when a guy gets smashed almost simultaneously after receiving it such that no reasonable person could have been expected to dispose of it within those constraints.
1 Like