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

[stsae]

Its the tacklers responsibility not to hit someone high, lift and put a player in a dangerous position and not attack the legs of a kicker.

Its a penalty every day of the week. If that happened to our kickers youd all be crying in the chapel.

But IMO Graham didn't intentionally attack the legs. Accidental but definite on field penalty.

As for the abusing and intimidating reffs, thats idiot and should attract suspension. We have seen JoEy and Thursthead attract suspension for much less abuse of an official.

As for the crowd, its ALWAYS The Boggs fans. ALWAYS. Seroiusly enough is enough. Time for someone to make a stand and actually punish that club for its fans idiotic behaviour.

Greenturd will be judged on how he treats this repeat of bad behaviour.

[Johnny Tobin]

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.

Will be interesting to see what Greenberg does.

Interviewed after the game when asked if the club would be punished instead of saying something like all options will be considered he started going on about how hard the club works to ensure their fans behave.

I also agree that his position is untenable. The appearance of bias is enough to totally undermine the NRL - even if there isn't any.

[Andrew Walker]

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.

I have just looked at the rule book and seen that This clearly undermines the initial decision There is even a diagram as an example showing exactly what happened on Friday

[TDK]

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.

I agree. The Dogs are the stuffed on this one and Greenturd will as usual let them off with a slap on the wrist. But the bigger issue is the refs having influence over results. I truly believe in the last 10minutes of a game, any penalty given for any infringement in oppositions half cannot be taken as a goal kick. This ensures any ref can't guarantee a result for any team with a cheap penalty to win a 80minute game. At least every team has ten minutes to win a game if there is only a point or two difference.

[Andrew Walker]

I agree. The Dogs are the stuffed on this one and Greenturd will as usual let them off with a slap on the wrist. But the bigger issue is the refs having influence over results. I truly believe in the last 10minutes of a game, any penalty given for any infringement in oppositions half cannot be taken as a goal kick. This ensures any ref can't guarantee a result for any team with a cheap penalty to win a 80minute game. At least every team has ten minutes to win a game if there is only a point or two difference.

Absolutely insane idea You really should think before you post

[TDK]

Absolutely insane idea You really should think before you post

Not at all. They brought in the differential penalty rule that you can't kick for goal off a scrum penalty so why not disallow kicking for goal in the last or 5 minutes of a game. It would certainly stop the controversial ref decisions that determine the final outcome of a game. There is nothing worse than getting a soft penalty in the last 5 min of a game after you have lead for 80min only to lose off a poor refs decision.

[Guest]

There is no difference between the last 5 minutes of a match and the first 5 minutes of a match and I believe that is an awful proposal.

[The Axe]

Blink and you miss it. The NRL is run by magicians. Whilst we are distracted by the Fan's behaviour, and Graham's disrespect towards refs, the initial culprit causing me to write this thread was just vindicated. Josh Morris was not charged by the MRC. In other words, fellas, he missed the head of Luke with his boot! That's right, he missed. If my memory is still good, the ref stated to Graham the 8 points was because of possible contact with the head by Morris. They never mentioned Kassiano at the time. Now they need their scapegoat and they divert our attention to him. No refs will be sacked. Good old cover up.

The 8 point stitch up on the stroke of halftime was in fact just that - a stitch up. Hence the reason I would have walked the team.
"Meanwhile, Josh Morris has escaped suspension for his part in the Isaac Luke eight-point try but Sam Kasiano has been charged with dangerous contact and faces a three-week suspension. It could be reduced to two weeks with an early guilty plea." DailyT

Anyway, sorry to have interrupted the NRL's Magic Show. Normal viewing will return

[TDK]

There is no difference between the last 5 minutes of a match and the first 5 minutes of a match and I believe that is an awful proposal.

There is a big difference. In the first 5 min you have 75 minutes to make up for a dud call but in the last 5 min your chances are bleak. If Souths got the penalty and couldn't kick for goal but scored a try off the ensuing set of six then good luck to them because the dogs had a chance to save the game by defending their set but in this case it was stolen by a refs call and now submerged in controversy. If it's such a poor proposal then explain the reasoning on why the NRL brought in the differential penalty.

[milanja]

Blink and you miss it. The NRL is run by magicians. Whilst we are distracted by the Fan's behaviour, and Graham's disrespect towards refs, the initial culprit causing me to write this thread was just vindicated. Josh Morris was not charged by the MRC. In other words, fellas, he missed the head of Luke with his boot! That's right, he missed. If my memory is still good, the ref stated to Graham the 8 points was because of possible contact with the head by Morris. They never mentioned Kassiano at the time. Now they need their scapegoat and they divert our attention to him. No refs will be sacked. Good old cover up.

The 8 point stitch up on the stroke of halftime was in fact just that - a stitch up. Hence the reason I would have walked the team.
"Meanwhile, Josh Morris has escaped suspension for his part in the Isaac Luke eight-point try but Sam Kasiano has been charged with dangerous contact and faces a three-week suspension. It could be reduced to two weeks with an early guilty plea." DailyT

Anyway, sorry to have interrupted the NRL's Magic Show. Normal viewing will return

The other one is, why is g burgess grading less than kasiano, for the same act?

[ROC181]

Absolutely insane idea You really should think before you post

Sorry but this is so condescending. Let the guy express his idea without being ridiculed.

[Kingbilly]

Sorry but this is so condescending. Let the guy express his idea without being ridiculed.

Maybe it is, but the idea was still stupid.
Its reactionary and doesn't go close to addressing the issue, which is inconsistent and incompetent refereeing.

[ROC181]

Maybe it is, but the idea was still stupid.
Its reactionary and doesn't go close to addressing the issue, which is inconsistent and incompetent refereeing.

It's not about 'the idea' it's about not ridiculing someone about it. If you don't agree, argue it in a mature fashion not be insulting. Yes I know someone will say that maturity around this place is rare but there's no need to be like that.

[Game Fowl]

And for the record, that penalty was very far from clear cut - despite the many here saying it was. It was within the refs' discretion to rule Graham was attempting a charge down at the ball and was not playing at Reynolds, and that contact was accidental in playing at the ball and not the kicker.

.

When I watched the game it was obvious that Graham was playing at the ball , there was no intent to contact the knicker he wasn't even looking but was fully expecting a ball in the face.

Penalty - wrong call in this instant , even the commentary team were vocalising their disbelief.

However if this is the way they are going to rule from now on, no worries , but make it clear kickers are to be protected, there have been numerous dubious instances where the kicker is maliciously taken out and not even warned, it is the inconsistency of the adjudicating which is ruining this great game.

[ROC181]

When I watched the game it was obvious that Graham was playing at the ball , there was no intent to contact the knicker he wasn't even looking but was fully expecting a ball in the face.

Penalty - wrong call in this instant , even the commentary team were vocalising their disbelief.

However if this is the way they are going to rule from now on, no worries , but make it clear kickers are to be protected, there have been numerous dubious instances where the kicker is maliciously taken out and not even warned, it is the inconsistency of the adjudicating which is ruining this great game.

Well I've watched that a few times on Livestream and as much as I would like to agree with Graham going for the ball, at the end of the day it was reckless. He turns his shoulder downwards much like doing a shoulder charge and he gets the leg. Graham has form of playing dirty much like Les Boyd did in his days. He's from the old school of players where you throw everything into it and if you injure, then that's the way it is. Of course those days are over now but it's hard for him to change. The fact that he waved for the trainer to get and help Reynolds doesn't change the fact that he was reckless.