If I was James Graham, I'd walk the team off

[2026]

Fallout;

http://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/rugby...s?ocid=U143DHP

Last week he want's to punch on with Sandow in the car park and now this.

The little angry midget is on tilt !

[ROC181]

Hahahaha....this is getting funnier by the day...keep it coming journos like Buzz and K*nt.

[milanja]

Gee the world is getting precious these days.

[Johnny.]

Gee the world is getting precious these days.

[milanja]

I don't see what you're getting at mate. To me, the penalty was very clear cut. It doesn't matter if it was accidental or not. You make contact with the legs of a kicker and it's a penalty. If that had happened to us you could guarantee fans would be up in arms calling for a penalty to protect Pearce/Maloney



Wrong.

That is not the case. Ceteris paribus, if Graham had tackled him around the chest there is no penalty.

Can somebody clarify, if Graham had got a fingertip or a hand to the ball in his attempted chargedown, would it still have been a penalty??

[2026]

Can somebody clarify, if Graham had got a fingertip or a hand to the ball in his attempted chargedown, would it still have been a penalty??

Yes. The penalty is for tackling a kickers legs.

If he hit him in the torso then no.

He may be able to argue Section 15 - "if the player in possession has delayed kicking the ball until the tackler has commenced to dive, the tackler should not be penalised"

It does appear that he has commenced to dive before Reynolds kicks the ball therefore entitled to attempt the chargedown. However the issue is taking the kickers legs out.

[horrie hastings]

Wasnt the rule introduced (attacking kickers legs) because it was a deliberate play by some players ala Steve Price? The key trigger being deliberate. I recall a game we played Manly at Brooky many years ago and all they did was attack our kickers legs.

I guess the point I am trying to make is the rule was introduce to prohibit deliberate attacking of legs due to injuries. As we know refs, especially video refs have NFI on how to interpret a rule so they made it easy ' any contact'. The incident last night was not foul or deliberate but because interpretation is too difficult, the refs now award a penalty and gave 2 points to Souths. I for one am over most games the result are ref driven verse players ability.

Spot on.

[Frozen Chook]

In my mind. I think one thing was absolutely clear, was that James Graham had only one intent which was to charge the kick down.

It is also clear that this rule and how it is applied to charge downs hasn’t been explained to the players, commentators and fans.

And equally important it seems like the rules surrounding whole late hits on kickers (legs and in the air) is applied purely on a discretionary basis – Not as a rule of the game. The arbitrary interpretations of "rules" of the game like this are frustrating players and fans alike. Watch the response of the second ref at 1:16 who having a clear sighting of the incident, heads down field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34meqI68iJw

If it was a rule in a literal sense, every field goal attempt where accidental contact occurs with the leg should now result in a penalty and a match winning attempt at goal.

[Frozen Chook]

Regardless of whether the players/crowd response was appropriate or not, the lack of consistency in “applying” the “rules” is a contributor as to why you get a response like what happened yesterday.

In relation to our club interests, go back to the roosters game and Pearce is taken late and in the air. No Penalty Why?

and this incident was viewed in replay from a number of angles?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C5KvJarPi0

[The Axe]

But you are not James Graham. You are a muppet behind a keyboard.

If by that you mean I have not played FG RL, then I am a muppet. I did play sport at a pretty good level...again...not first Grade. I am happy with my achievements and comfortable that I gave it the best of my ability. Just not good enough for FG in my chosen sport.

BUT whether I was playing FG RL or another sport, I do have INTEGRITY and can identify INJUSTICE. It sposted 2 or so minutes before 1/2 time. I am still unconvinced Morris' boot hit Isaac's head. I never say his head react in a manner as though it was kicked. IMHO the threat came from Kasiano. I could be wrong but clearly Graham felt the same as I did over this incident through his vigorous defence on Morris.

I wrote about walking the team and have done so numerous times as I read a story about Eales threatening to walled in RWC against the French for repeated foul play. A former All Black skipper has one down in folklore for offering to walk to the refs for referring one side. Nothing happens in sport/life until action occurs. Believe me, I'd like more of Graham's leadership for walking the team than his assaults on the referees.

As for you, what sort of muppet are you, TCB??

[Kingbilly]

It is also clear that this rule and how it is applied to charge downs hasn’t been explained to the players, commentators and fans.

When the rule was brought in everyone knew about it and understood it.
The confusion lies plainly and simply in the fact that the referees do not apply it and players have been used to hitting the kickers legs and getting away with it.
The biggest cause in this whole debarcle is the inconsistent and incompetent refereeing of the game and of course its not being talked about in the media

[milanja]

After watching it all again in the replays, and going by the letter of the law, the penalty was fair enough. The other thing was from the kickoff when dogs were saying it should of been a penalty for a push in the back, you could actually see a bulldog player push a souths player into josh morris, so fair enough no penalty given.

As someone mentioned earlier, it's nice when the bad publicity is between both the clubs we dislike the most.

[Bansai Pipeline]

If there's a penalty on offer, Souths are going to get it. And that be the truth.

Also, I predict Reynolds will be back within the month.

[Thirteen]

You can't just walk away when things go against you.

[Guest]

I do not believe that James Graham should have walked his players off the field I believe that the referee should have walked his officials team off the field for having to receive such abusive behaviour.

The behaviour of the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs players and fans on friday afternoon was out of order and unacceptable. The behaviour of the fans and out of control players such as David Klemmer was lead by their captain James Graham who I believe should have been sent from the field. We do give the referees a hard time and believe they are having it in for our club however you could see that the young referee was visibly shaken having to receive such aggressive abuse.

I believe that the position of Todd Greenberg within the NRL is currently untenable and I have no faith in this man handing down a suitable punishment to the Canterbury club, the fans, the players and the captain. I believe that the captain James Graham and player David Klemmer should receive suspensions and fines and the Canterbury club should be forced to play one match without their fans allowed in attendance. I can only imagine how bad the behaviour of their fans will be when they return to Belmore Oval.