Pauga 4 weeks

[Thirteen]

After his attempted tackle that led to the Bulldogs first try yesterday I think the Roosters should’ve suspended him for four weeks. Was good to see JWH give it to him.

[Rooster_6]

But it's not really a surprise is it?

It being deemed as reckless is, thought it would’ve been a careless charge.

I would challenge at the judiciary to be honest.

[elo]

Pauga left a stiff arm out and WAS NOT looking at the target, that is indeed one of the definitions of a reckless action. The Bulldogs player slipping is irrelevant in this case, if you are going to use force then you better be looking at the damn target of the force and not just taking a wild guess, this was about as dumb as it gets.

[Random Rooster]

Disagree.
Lazy reflex action to an opposition player who was falling to the ground.

Not condoning Pauga or Suaalii's poor techniques or choices however, in both cases the opposition player was falling to the ground.

Yeah you roll the dice if you go high but 4 weeks imo is too steep especially for Pauga who hasn't got a long rap sheet.

It's the bad look that determines the MRC gradings. Treacy's head being foldedand Walsh copping whiplash didnt help.

Yes the player was falling and there no intent to cause harm- (those days are gone) but it was a swinging arm that connected to the head and knocked the player out.

I think 4 weeks isn't enough but i will say this- in the recent past Teddy has copped a lot of similar if not worse head high tackles that have resulted in 2 week suspensions.

Bailey Simonsson comes to mind but nothing more than Tom Burgess in the week before the 2002 semi finals (i think). https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=783151709564064

To my way of thinking the Burgess shot was worth every bit of 6 weeks- yet he copped a ridiculous 2 weeks.

Can you use previous gradings as comparison evidence?? If so id be headed to the judciary with the Burgess grading

[ism22]

4 weeks is ridiculous where there is no intent. Attacking players slipping or ducking at the last minute needs to be factored in. Only suspend for deliberate foul plays, which are pretty rare these days.

Agreed mate. I totally appreciate the counter argument that you can't clobber a guy just because he's good at putting on a crafty step. However, contributory negligence is certainly a defence when it comes to civil claims (which is what the NRL's trying to protect itself against here). However it's a mug's argument that attacking players can never be in any way responsible for where their head is sitting during a tackle. Also, the NRL's application of 'recklessness' is nothing like how a court would interpret it...

[Crab]

Pauga left a stiff arm out and WAS NOT looking at the target, that is indeed one of the definitions of a reckless action. The Bulldogs player slipping is irrelevant in this case, if you are going to use force then you better be looking at the damn target of the force and not just taking a wild guess, this was about as dumb as it gets.

You make a valid point and I hadn't noticed Pauga not looking at the attacker. Although I think closing your eyes before impact would be an natural instinctive action . I honestly can't see malice or dubious intention in the tackle and would fight the severity. The attacker slipping into the contact is why he copped it in the head. Wrong place at the wrong time, it's a high speed heavy contact sport and if attackers suddenly slip or try and duck under a tackle then some responsibility should be attributable to their own actions.

[elo]

You make a valid point and I hadn't noticed Pauga not looking at the attacker. Although I think closing your eyes before impact would be an natural instinctive action . I honestly can't see malice or dubious intention in the tackle and would fight the severity. The attacker slipping into the contact is why he copped it in the head. Wrong place at the wrong time, it's a high speed heavy contact sport and if attackers suddenly slip or try and duck under a tackle then some responsibility should be attributable to their own actions.

It's not that, his eyes are on Kiraz who had been terrorizing him all game - not the ball carrier! He left the arm out as a backup plan in case the fullback throws a dummy and goes himself - he does not look at the man with the ball, the man with the ball slips and Pauga has a stiff arm out which clocks the guy in the head with force. A reckless charge action either has to have intent to injure (Queensland screamed that Walsh was deliberately clocked, hence Big Joe's reckless charge - Joe's charge was pandering to the Queensland mob) or dangerous via a consequencial action. (why Pauga's is reckless and not careless) Earlier in the game when the Dogs scored down Pauga's side after he missed a tackle he copped an earful from JWH and no doubt he took that to heart and wasn't going to let anyone beat him again, unfortunately he did it in the worst possible way and will now do the time.

[Batemans Bay Rooster]

Torrential rain the entire game, players charging at each other. He slipped and lost his height at high speed before he reached the line. It is impossible for the defender to make any adjustment in that split second. They are already committed to making the tackle.

[Crab]

It's not that, his eyes are on Kiraz who had been terrorizing him all game - not the ball carrier! He left the arm out as a backup plan in case the fullback throws a dummy and goes himself - he does not look at the man with the ball, the man with the ball slips and Pauga has a stiff arm out which clocks the guy in the head with force. A reckless charge action either has to have intent to injure (Queensland screamed that Walsh was deliberately clocked, hence Big Joe's reckless charge - Joe's charge was pandering to the Queensland mob) or dangerous via a consequencial action. (why Pauga's is reckless and not careless) Earlier in the game when the Dogs scored down Pauga's side after he missed a tackle he copped an earful from JWH and no doubt he took that to heart and wasn't going to let anyone beat him again, unfortunately he did it in the worst possible way and will now do the time.

Put that way it's hard to argue , are you a referee ? But I still reckon Paugas a victim of circumstance, was not intending to cause harm and should receive some leniency . I do have a tendency to favour the Roosters I know , but nobody else does .

[Mickie Lane]

I wouldn’t have sent Suaalii or Pauga off & I wouldn’t send a player from an opposition team for doing that to one of our players.

[HunchoRooster]

I think it’s a bit too much. 2 weeks would suffice. He had an absolutely awful game. Hopefully bounces back.

[King Salvo]

It being deemed as reckless is, thought it would’ve been a careless charge.

I would challenge at the judiciary to be honest.

I think the early plea is the way to go which has occurred. It would be very difficult to have it downgraded to high tackle.(Carless) one has to say, as there are no mitigating circumstances anymore. Tracy slipped or was falling, and Fetalaiga Pauga was wrong-footed. a combination of two actions

The questions are, though: why was there no charge for Burton's high tackle on Dom Young and why Skelton's tackle on Fetalaiga Pauga was not deemed a shoulder charge when it met the NRL's definition of what constitutes a shoulder charge offence?

[roosterproud]

Welcome Ethan. Will the nswrl games count wĥen we have the nrl bye. Jnr played with the nswrl team