Personally I'm disgusted that Hardakre has got away with next to nothing as punishment for criminal behaviour.

What's worse, a couple of punches in a Grand Final from Flower or going into student accommodation in the middle of the night and beating up one of the residents who challenged your right to be there?

Hang on, so the situation when a drop goal attempt is treated differently by the laws than an 'ordinary' cross-kick or grubber? Surely there are circumstances where defenders (and refs) can't tell for sure which it is?

In the opinion of the referee it was

Oh here we go



Were you there? It sounds like you know what happened.

He got a £200 fine and had to write an apology. That doesn't sound like the crime of the century to me, leaves a few questions unanswered and it was clearly not the one sided affair you seem to think it was.

Not that anyone mentioned Flower so i'm not sure what your point is but IMO what Flower did was worse than anything Hardaker or Graham have done, on or off the field.

The official laws contradict his opinion in this instance

Flower threw and landed punches, something that happens in EVERY game and it was in a retaliation to an elbow attack which resulted in that player being suspended.
Jammer Graham could have effectively ended a playing career. Jammers mouthing off is not good for the game, in fact its more disgraceful than Flowers punch, will he get a 6 month ban? Bearing in mind he doesnt play for wigan....

I heard about this from a friend and my first thought was that it would be Gerard Sutton that would be involved.

Lo and behold......

There isn't a team on the planet that wouldn't sign Graham in a heatbeat.

Fortunately for the NRL they now get to duck addressing a completely incompetent refereeing performance.

As for Bill Harrigan's ridiculous [i"What if he'd broken his leg?"[/i remark.

I'd say, [i"It wasn't intentional. Rugby League is a tough game"[/i.

Take a look at that incident again - because it's a microcosm for the depressing direction the game is heading.

You have a player (nay a Captain) who has sweat blood for the cause. He's sustained a fearful gash to his head, left the field, been sewed up and returned at the same intensity. We're in the last few minutes. The Dogs are defending a deserved lead. The Rabbitohs have moments left to snatch the game and on the final tackle dump the ball off for the kick.

Graham performs a superhuman charge and fully extends himself horizontally in a true no-guts-no-glory attempt at the ball. Bear in mind that this is a 100kg prop in mid air. Not a Patriot missile which can "Abort" should something go wrong.

There isn't a supporter on the planet that wouldn't kill for that kind of effort from one of their players defending a slim lead in the dying seconds.

And yet Graham is PENALISED for his Herculean effort and the subsequent penalty costs them the game.

Had he gone for the player deliberately I'd have no problem with the decision. But clearly it's more important that we prevent fictional injuries from occurring than support factual great play rendered without a shred of malice.

What makes me laugh is when people say how much better the NRL refs are compared to the officials here in Super League.

The NRL refs are shocking. And it's no surprises considering Tony Archer is their boss.

It was a dangerous tackle/charge-down attempt that put the kicker in real danger of injury (and possibly did cause an injury?) - worthy of a penalty for me. Although the ref got the place awfully wrong.

Don't care much for Graham's diva antics either. Him trying to justify Kasiano's knee and Morris' kick to the head of Isaac Luke was embarrassing.

Rugby League is a dangerous game. It was in no way deliberate. As such - suck it up or quit.

I didn't say he was right but then again I didn't say he was wrong

No, the place where the penalty was taken was 100% correct.

It was the actual call that sucked. Graham wasn't even looking where he was diving. He dived before the ball left the foot, his head was tilted to the side, he was going for the ball and the ball only.

Horrible call by Sutton.....and it's not the first time him or his idiot brother have made one.

Oh so you weren't trying to imply it was a foul just because the referee thought so, you were just making a completely pointless statement of the obvious.

Personally I think it's a penalty. It's probably frustrating in the sense that other similar situations aren't penalised but I think Graham has a duty of care to not dive at a player's leg.

I totally agree it wasn't deliberate. But kickers are in a very vulnerable position and, like players jumping to catch a high ball, should be protected a little.

My bad, pretty stupid rule though.

Drop Goal 10.
(a) If a player fouls an opponent who is attempting a
Foul Play drop goal, a penalty kick shall be awarded in front
on Kicker of the goal posts.

Regardless of him going for the ball, he missed and collided with the legs of a vulnerable kicker. As it is, Reynolds "only" has ligament damage (rather than a broken leg) and is out for 5 months.

Your hatred and bias of the Sutton referees is noted.

Players get injured in legal challenges. It doesn't become a foul because an injury occurs, it's just unfortunate. The law clearly stipulates that Graham shouldn't have been penalised.

Except it was. He made contact with the kicker's planted leg, which is a huge and well-known no-no in the NRL, and an automatic penalty - moreso when it's the kicker's planted leg. And because it was in the act of kicking a drop-goal the penalty is 10 metres out from the sticks - which is the rule very few people knew.

As Bill Harrigan put it, "the player performing the charge down cannot under any circumstances come into contact with the kicker’s leg." Directives to this effect have been issued several times in the NRL since around 2007 following a few bad incidents.

Some people seem to think it being 'accidental' excuses the outcome. It doesn't. The onus is on Graham not to make dangerous contact. Whether he slipped or not is irrelevant.

Again, whether you like it or not the referee was correct.

If we're penalising players for busting a gut to win the game without a shred of malice there's a serious problem with the game.

I'm sorry but if it's a choice between "potential" injuries to a kicker or penalising the kind of never-say-die spirit manifested in hard but fair play I'll take the injury [uevery time[/u.

We should not be protecting kickers from unintentional consequences of non-malicious actions. Period.

What next - boxing without punches to the head?!?!

I agree with that. Whilst I don't think Graham meant to collide with or hurt the guy, too often we see guys flying into kickers knowing the ball is gone but hoping to shake them up or hurt them (not seriously perhaps but enough to effect their game or at least miss the rest of the particular game in question).

See the charge at Sinfield by Michael Monaghan in the '12 GF that had Sinfield out on the floor. Granted as some of the commentators say, he can't avoid colliding with Sinfield at that speed but the way he dips his head is very unnatural and looks like he was trying to give him a nut on the head.

Graham's duty of care starts and finishes with not intentionally injuring an opponent.

We have no business making kickers a protected species and penalising accidental injury. Whether the ref was right or wrong according to the rules - that ending was a BAD advert for the sport.

Yes, Graham probably should have kept his mouth shut. But I can completely understand his total and utter frustration.

I didn't say that players don't get injured in legal challenges. I didn't say a penalty should be given when an injury occurs. In fact I didn't mention the injury at all.

What I said was that players in vulnerable positions should be protected and that defenders have a duty to ensure they don't make dangerous contact with a player in a vulnerable position.



Actually it does. Or it at least gives the referee the leeway to penalise Graham.

The law you quoted is to do with obstruction. Not dangerous contact.

This one gives the ref all the legitimacy he needs to penalise Graham's unintentional but careless action -

Yep. With the increasing power and pace of players comes additional responsibilities.

If we're penalising players for unintentionally injuring a kicker then we should penalise every unintentional injury.

We can't protect one group of players at the expense of every other.

I don't want half-backs entering the game thinking they are entitled to protection other players aren't afforded.