Toovey points the finger at Roosters player for stray elbow

[fletch]

Sydney Roosters coach Trent Robinson says he would have no problem with Sonny Bill Williams boxing in the off-season and returning to the NRL in 2014.

After Williams starred in the tricolours' 18-12 Monday Night Football clash win over Manly at Allianz Stadium, Robinson spoke passionately about rugby league doing more to keep stars like Williams and win back the likes of Israel Folau.

After addressing the media, Robinson was asked by rugby league Immortal Andrew Johns whether he would have an objection to Williams, 27, continuing his boxing career during the summer, even if it meant a late start to the 2014 pre-season.

"Yeah, I'd have no problem with it," Robinson told Triple M. "I was pretty cool with it last time. I was happy with his prep, I talked to him every week, and I know what kind of guy he is.

"If a guy wants to go and earn some money in another sport for a short period of time in the off-season, I'm OK with that.

"I know he's preparing well and he's a professional. I think to keep him in our sport... you say ‘no' and he has to go to another code to do it – it's only their gain. It's our loss."

When asked if there was any news on the bid to retain Williams, who is on a one-year contract, Robinson answered: "To tell you the truth, we haven't even talked about it.

"I'm sort of waiting for the hierarchy and Sonny to talk. I'm not putting pressure on it because I know there's going to be a lot of pressure from outside.

"Sonny's added huge value to the Roosters and also to our game."

Robinson then made the point of how important it is for rugby league to retain stars like SBW but also lure back its stars who are currently in other codes.

"Even I'm switching over and watching Israel Folau play; there's a sense of pride, when he plays well as well, for every rugby league supporter," Robinson said.

"We don't want that to happen with Sonny – going to see him play another code. We want to keep them in our game. We need to keep them in our game.

"We've got a great product but we need players like that... and if we can, it would be great to have Israel Folau back as well. If we can get Israel back, we must."

Poor goal-kicking from Boyd Cordner and Mitchell Pearce kept the Sea Eagles in MNF for longer than would otherwise have been the case, with a contentious high-tackle penalty against forward Justin Horo finally allowing the home team to open up an eight-point lead midway through the second half.

Meanwhile, Sea Eagles coach Geoff Toovey believes a Sydney Roosters player could be in strife for an incident that may have left interchange forward James Hasson with a facial injury.

Toovey's players told him Hassan copped a stray elbow. The coach said he expected the video review committee to check the incident.

[roostersrule2]

Roger's head, the next evoloution in elbows.

[John Corey]

I also noticed Toovey (as well as Warren Smith) were whining about Mini taking out Brett Stewart when he went up for that bomb in the 2nd half?? Smith complained by saying that he made contact with Stewart in the air?

Since when are you not allowed to make contact in the air with someone when you are making a legitimate contest for the ball? Mini's eyes were on the ball the entire time and he leapt up for it. Now he may have disguised it well but that's irrelevant. I think he was trying to catch the ball whilst at the same time doing his best to put Stewart off. It was a great play, well within the rules of the game.

[Tommy Smith]

LOL Toovey's players told him a porky.

That's a good one.

Meanwhile, just on that incident, how the **** did they get a scrum for hitting our player in the head? Besides that he clearly lost it backwards.

[melon....]

Toovey is the game's biggest sore loser, a whinging underpants gnome of the highest calibre. Someone should put him back in the crache.

[Headless Chook]

I also noticed Toovey (as well as Warren Smith) were whining about Mini taking out Brett Stewart when he went up for that bomb in the 2nd half?? Smith complained by saying that he made contact with Stewart in the air?

Since when are you not allowed to make contact in the air with someone when you are making a legitimate contest for the ball? Mini's eyes were on the ball the entire time and he leapt up for it. Now he may have disguised it well but that's irrelevant. I think he was trying to catch the ball whilst at the same time doing his best to put Stewart off. It was a great play, well within the rules of the game.

I agree, I couldn't believe what a big issue they made of Mini's attempt. He had eyes for the ball only and jumped at the same time as Stewart. Despite this they tried to insinuate that he jumped early to put Stewart off. If that was a penalty, then there will never be another try scored from a bomb.

[Guest]

Thatll do me. Fark me he can whinge. The Manly player came out of the line recklessly and took RTS out if the game. If anything he should have been penalised and sighted. As for the Mini Stewart thing of course he was going for the ball. I couldnt really believe how Warren Smith waz carrying on. Love the hate though!

[Funky Chicken]

Contentious penalty my ass, it was clearly a high tackle on JWH and deserved a penalty, I bet if JWH had done it to a Manly player the on field gimps would have blown a penalty lickity split.

I think the likes of Warren Smith and other members of the anti-Rooster brigade are starting to get quite worried about just how well we are going (and the fact that we still have a lot of improvement left in us).

Hopefully we can smash the merge and make it a 4 point win with the buy which will put us on 28 points and looking down the barrel of a definite top 4 spot.

[ROC181]

I also noticed Toovey (as well as Warren Smith) were whining about Mini taking out Brett Stewart when he went up for that bomb in the 2nd half?? Smith complained by saying that he made contact with Stewart in the air?

Since when are you not allowed to make contact in the air with someone when you are making a legitimate contest for the ball? Mini's eyes were on the ball the entire time and he leapt up for it. Now he may have disguised it well but that's irrelevant. I think he was trying to catch the ball whilst at the same time doing his best to put Stewart off. It was a great play, well within the rules of the game.

If the Manly players weren't obstructing Mini by shielding Stewart in that jump, Mini would have gone up head on but because of that obstruction, Mini had to go around them to try and jump. It happened a few plays earlier when Stewart once again went up and the defense get in the way of the attacking players and I believe it was Topuo who was obstructed. I thought they were clamping down on that.

[blooster]

I was sitting in Bay 12 and Toovey was going NUTS when that Mini v's Stewart decision went against him... The crowd in front of the coach's box let him know the score..

[stsae]

LOL Toovey's players told him a porky.

That's a good one.

Meanwhile, just on that incident, how the **** did they get a scrum for hitting our player in the head? Besides that he clearly lost it backwards.

He was asleep before he hit the turf so there's no way he lost it in the tackle, he wasn't held at any point.

The ball went backwards and a womanly player tried to dive on it knocking it on and PearceOrf kicked it out of his grasp.

The rule is dumb IMO. Cos if it was an accidental shoulder or arm to the head it's our penalty. But an accidental head clash is a lost ball.

Same result for the player but different ramifications for possession.

Dumb rules.

Seriously if someone's KOed and loses the ball in the tackle they surely can't be blamed and their team penalised for it by losing possession.

[Guest]

Ok the bias views on here are starting to get me.

I don't think minis attempt on Stewart wad a penalty but of the shoe was on the other foot we would be screaming for blood? We're giving it too their supporters for wanting a penalty when we would do the exact same.

The tackle on rts was in no way a penalty and whilst he was ko'd he still did knock it on.

Rant over.

[chook 56]

He was asleep before he hit the turf so there's no way he lost it in the tackle, he wasn't held at any point.

The ball went backwards and a womanly player tried to dive on it knocking it on and PearceOrf kicked it out of his grasp.

The rule is dumb IMO. Cos if it was an accidental shoulder or arm to the head it's our penalty. But an accidental head clash is a lost ball.

Same result for the player but different ramifications for possession.

Dumb rules.

Seriously if someone's KOed and loses the ball in the tackle they surely can't be blamed and their team penalised for it by losing possession.

Unless it's SKD.

[stsae]

Ok the bias views on here are starting to get me.

I don't think minis attempt on Stewart wad a penalty but of the shoe was on the other foot we would be screaming for blood? We're giving it too their supporters for wanting a penalty when we would do the exact same.

The tackle on rts was in no way a penalty and whilst he was ko'd he still did knock it on.

Rant over.

It's not a bias but it's the rule that needs looking into IMO.

If someone's KOed in possession whether its illegal or accidental I don't see why the play doesn't stop, as it does, and either a penaltys awarded for illegal contact or possessions retained.

Really the ball carrier in either case he's done nothing wrong but is still punished when it's accidental.

Its not the only rule that isn't right of course but that incident highlights an anomaly IMO.

They changed the rule when you pass just after a held call, instead of a penalty or scrum the attacker retains possession. Very similar concept I reckon.

[Headless Chook]

Ok the bias views on here are starting to get me.

I don't think minis attempt on Stewart wad a penalty but of the shoe was on the other foot we would be screaming for blood? We're giving it too their supporters for wanting a penalty when we would do the exact same.

The tackle on rts was in no way a penalty and whilst he was ko'd he still did knock it on.

Rant over.

I didn't think the Mini challenge was a penalty and it wouldn't matter if the roles were reversed I would say the same thing. You see challenges like that in the air every time a kick goes up.

As for the RTS inicident, I agree it wasn't a penalty. There was nothing to penalise it was just one of those freak accidents that happen on a footy field. If you think he dropped it forward however, then you have a serious problem with direction!