What JB said.

That article 15 that people keep quoting is from the[i international [/irules.
NRL rules are clear that contact with the legs of a kicker after the ball is gone is banned.

Personally I think it was just an unfortunate incident with no intent, but it wrecked the guy's knee and so obviously was dangerous. Watching live I thought play on, but on replay I'm not uncomfortable with a penalty.

What is absolutely not acceptable is the abuse and intimidation by Graham and Klemmer. Quite apart from the absolute disgrace and the damage to the game's image, that kind of bullying is specifically targeted under Australian workplace law. (I have personally sacked two people for incidences of that sort. In one case - no worse than what Graham did - the guy's union rep told me that I had no option but to dismiss him instantly.)
He is damned lucky that the refs haven't made formal complaints against him. If they had it would go through Workcover NSW and he would be unemployed.

Graham has a record of abusing refs and has become known down under for his grubby behavior rather than his tough meter-eating. Which is a pity. (Although biting Slater in a Grand Final may, just possibly, be the single stupidest action in Rugby League ever)

Buggo could you please inform me where I can find the ruling that is relevant to the alleged foul by Graham. I have looked through the international laws but failed to find anything that covers the James Graham incident.

Should I be looking specifically at the NRL rules?

The act of blocking a DG is legitimate and there was no 'foul play' here, JG has not made a dangerous or a reckless play and the rules do not cover such.

Responsibility for tacklers or indeed blockers when injury occurs only seems to be upheld when it suits, we see 'accidental injuries all the time that are never even looked at by the officials nor put on report when they are far more worthy of the tag 'foul play' given the liklihood of occurance. The 'accidental' injury to James graham was never penalised, nor did anyone go on report..as I originally said a fair few pages back, there is no consistancy and double standards are applied aplenty..basically they penalised the outcome rather than the act itself..it's comeplete and utter bullshine

Still yet to see a chargedown attempt that ended up in the legs of the kicker... yet another game ruined obviously.

Hitting a kickers planted leg in then rl is considered reckless play. It has been so for yeas and years.mwe have seen dozens of penalties for exact same thing. It was the correct decision end of. How hard is that to u dr stand? If you don't like the rule blame steve price. He made it an art form to "attempt" to block a kick yet regularly take out the kickers legs. As has been seen by the serious injury it caused Reynolds, it is reckless and prone to causing serious injury.

Quote ="redex113"Buggo could you please inform me where I can find the ruling that is relevant to the alleged foul by Graham. I have looked through the international laws but failed to find anything that covers the James Graham incident. Should I be looking specifically at the NRL rules?'" See page 6. Running into a kicker is not deemed as an attempted tackle and is deemed dangerous. The fact he was attempting to block the kick is irrelevant. https://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEdit ... tation.pdf

Quote ="redex113"Buggo could you please inform me where I can find the ruling that is relevant to the alleged foul by Graham. I have looked through the international laws but failed to find anything that covers the James Graham incident. Should I be looking specifically at the NRL rules?'" See page 6. Running into a kicker is not deemed as an attempted tackle and is deemed dangerous. The fact he was attempting to block the kick is irrelevant. https://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEdit ... tation.pdf