Banned for ACCIDENTAL contact

[Rocky Rhodes]

Radley got penalised and binned for that exact reason last season.

Didn't he get 5 weeks suspension for a suspected high shot on Pangai Jr. I still can't get over that joke of a decision.

[Waylander]

What everyone is seeming to forget, is that there was contact to the HEAD.
If he had hit him lower, no problemo and it'd be on the highlights reel all year and next.
Unfortunately, contact to the HEAD cannot be easily defined as accidental or otherwise.
Remember Lattrel got a few weeks for his 'accidental' contact with Joey's HEAD.

In a similar vein, plenty on here lamenting Victor's lack of aggression this year. It's directly linked to not attempting big dominant 1 on 1 hits, up around the shoulder, that can too easily be mistimed by centimetres that result in contact to the HEAD.

It was an accidental head clash in a front-on tackle, not an inadvertent (or deliberate) arm or shoulder to the head. He has been suspended for not taking enough care to prevent an accidental head clash. It's ludicrous.

[eddie]

Didn't he get 5 weeks suspension for a suspected high shot on Pangai Jr. I still can't get over that joke of a decision.

Yeah I think so.
I remember the game manager sin-binning him and saying the tackle was too forceful............it didn't look high to me.

[Bondicigar]

Lucky Nate Miles is no longer playing there would be players getting suspended for getting head butted

[Rocky Rhodes]

What's frustrating is that they just make the rules up on the go based on how seriously somebody gets hurt. This results in more 'cheat sheet' style reffing where refs are looking for today's fad penalty rather than calling the game as they see it.

To me removing context from penalties removes commonsense. I'd also argue that it prevents refs from deciding what is reckless / negligent because that requires context.

For example if somebody hits a pedestrian with a car then you can't convict them unless you can demonstrate they did something wrong. On face value the physical element stacks up... sure! The NRL doesn't seem to respect the intent though. It just locks up the driver in all cases where there's a nasty car accident... even when they couldn't have done anything better.

Yes...the accident looked way worse than it was...are they saying Finucane intentionally headbutted him?....if so give him 10 weeks.

Commonsense and thinking are now dirty words...it's all about feelings and if u are offended..

Well I'm offended by NRL stupidity and inconsistencies..

[rented tracksuit]

All the aggression is being taken out of the game except from Latrell.
Souths will get over the Sharks this weekend without Finucane.
Look out everyone our favorite other team are gonna be hard to beat if Latrell stays fit.

Should make you happy mate!

[rented tracksuit]

It was an accidental head clash in a front-on tackle, not an inadvertent (or deliberate) arm or shoulder to the head. He has been suspended for not taking enough care to prevent an accidental head clash. It's ludicrous.

Doesn’t that then set a precedent that any further head clashes in games need to be followed by suspensions?

[Chookies74]

"Lucky Nate Miles is no longer playing there would be players getting suspended for getting head butted"
New strategy, get Nate and his massive head back in the RWB. Nate to do a hit up, bending at the hips, head protruding fwd to ensure it's the first part of his body to make contact with the defender. Defender gets 10 in the bin. Nate finally lives up to the promise he never displayed whist playing for the RWB.

[Waylander]

Doesn’t that then set a precedent that any further head clashes in games need to be followed by suspensions?

No, it doesn’t because, the NRL in it’s infinite wisdom has written into its judiciary rules that previous incidents and their rulings cannot be used as precedent in any new incident. It’s one of the ways, along with mind boggling incompetence, that they manage to be so inconsistent in making rulings. I find it very frustrating.

[Renman]

It may be unpopular but for once, I think, they got it right with the suspension. The way Finucane ran to the tackle he had no control over the outcome which was, in this instance, a head clash or contact with the head. It was like trying to hit a golf ball as hard as you can. The swing feels good but in reality you have no control and the outcome is shit. No probs with the aggression at but it is his responsibility to have control. For mine it was a reckless tackle.

[rented tracksuit]

No, it doesn’t because, the NRL in it’s infinite wisdom has written into its judiciary rules that previous incidents and their rulings cannot be used as precedent in any new incident. It’s one of the ways, along with mind boggling incompetence, that they manage to be so inconsistent in making rulings. I find it very frustrating.

That’s atrocious!

[rented tracksuit]

It may be unpopular but for once, I think, they got it right with the suspension. The way Finucane ran to the tackle he had no control over the outcome which was, in this instance, a head clash or contact with the head. It was like trying to hit a golf ball as hard as you can. The swing feels good but in reality you have no control and the outcome is shit. No probs with the aggression at but it is his responsibility to have control. For mine it was a reckless tackle.

I disagree. If you look at it, SC sees him coming and tries to swing away from the contact which is when his head goes into a position where it’s collided with.

[Renman]

I disagree. If you look at it, SC sees him coming and tries to swing away from the contact which is when his head goes into a position where it’s collided with.

I agree with the point you make however DF could not control his attack and it goes awry. He takes an action that he cannot control it is therefore reckless. Having said that I do also see the other side of the coin just that this time I call Heads.

[rented tracksuit]

I agree with the point you make however DF could not control his attack and it goes awry. He takes an action that he cannot control it is therefore reckless. Having said that I do also see the other side of the coin just that this time I call Heads.

All good Renny. Can see it both ways but I think the suspension as the outcome was a bit steep.

[Chookies74]

"I disagree. If you look at it, SC sees him coming and tries to swing away from the contact which is when his head goes into a position where it’s collided with."
"I agree with the point you make however DF could not control his attack and it goes awry. He takes an action that he cannot control it is therefore reckless. Having said that I do also see the other side of the coin just that this time I call Heads."
Both excellent comments and both are correct. There lies the conundrum. Feels like the game is trying to take the aggression out of the game, again (sigh). Law of unintended consequences, also known as Bellamy's Law, means they will adopt another way to hurt, mame, slow down the game (sigh).