What? Like a high tackle?

So now we're talking about was it/wasn't it?

Still not a huge amount of condemnation of Graham's outrageous behaviour to the ref. He must have managed to avoid swearing as his teammate got binned for a clear FO to the ref, but he was pretty disrespectful. Still not sure what his point was about the knees in the Luke tackle. Pretty clear kick to the head from Morris and knees from Kasiano. The 8 point try gave that away yet Graham was still raging. He needs to calm it down or he'll turn into the verbal Hock.

My view is I can understand frustration as plenty of other late/dangerous hits happen that don't get penalised but it's hardly an outrageous decision.

Agree on Graham. For me he should certainly have been sin binned and if he swore at the ref should've been red carded. His team mate that was sin binned should've had a straight red.

EVERY chargedown has the potential to have a 'dangerous' outcome, you cannot just interpret a law that doesn't exist and penalise that outcome.

How can a referee know just before impact what the outcome will be or indeed if any impact will happen at all and whilst the burden of responsibility goes to the would be 'tackler' this situation is just ridiculous. If Graham had not outstretched his hands to block and aimed to tackle him around the legs in the act of kicking that isn't foul play.
What if the kicking player moves into the player charging down and gets hurt, by this application of a non existant rule the charger is penalised which is utter, utter garbage.
Someone said earlier it's a "no-no in the NRL", bollox, either it is a law or it isn't. This was not dangerous or reckless, not even close, so the laws if applied correctly do not cover 'accidental' injury in a legitimate (i.e. non reckless/dangerous) tackle or charge down. We had Ganson penalising a KR player for an accidental clash of heads a few years back, he described it as leading with the head despite the player leading with open arms to grab around the player, his decision that day incensed Dobson and was just as crazy as this!

IF it is considered as reckless and/or dangerous then you have to ban charge downs and probably any form of tackle above the chest, ANY tackle on a stationary player (1st, 2nd or third man in it doesn't matter) because there is the potential for injury, oh hang on, players get injuries (& long lasting ones too) from almsot some form of contact, let's just ban contact altogether and play fecking tiddlywinks, this is a decision of the very worst kind.

Any injury caused by accidental collision, action ... or fart.

Half backs have coped with players attacking the kick since the beginnings of the sport. If they can't handle what the likes of Peter Sterling, Allan Langer or Geoff Toovey regularly overcame then maybe they should go try another sport.

If you charge a kick down and make contact with the standing leg it's a penalty, is it not? Whether it was accidental or not is surely irrelevant? Every instance of foul play could be deemed accidental, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be penalised.

I've just re-read the thread, having just watched the game. So it seems there is, to say the least, room for manoeuvre for the refs to call it a penalty. If so, then the kick was taken from the correct place. Graham harangues referees week in, week out. As I think someone mentioned, the Aussie commentators, all of them, are very indulgent of him. Overly so in my view. Haranguing the ref could and should be worthy of a red card.

And, lets face it, if the Dogs lost this game, they really have no-one to blame but themselves. The Rabbitohs were woeful in the first half, but all the Dogs could manage was two very scratchy tries. Really the quality was very poor from both sides, frequently looking embarrassingly inept in front of goal. But then, I've never been a fan of Messrs Reynolds, Reynolds and Hodkinson, Origin or no Origin. The eight point try may have been fortuitous for the Bunnies, but I wouldn't argue with the decision. Don't forget it was the Dogs, who having been handed possession by the Bunnies, promptly gave it straight back, at critical periods in the match.

The referee got it right. Accidental or not the contact was made with the standing leg of the kicker and it's a penalty. Just like, accidental or not, if contact is made with the head it's a penalty. Graham had every right to feel upset with the call of course, but his behaviour was unacceptable, just like it was in the first half after the 8 point try was awarded. That sort of reaction is why I'm glad he wasn't given the England captaincy. That behaviour didn't benefit his players, in fact it led to one of them getting sin binned. Had Graham acted like a professional in his conduct towards the ref it's likely his team mate wouldn't have joined in. The only example of poor officiating was Graham not being sent off, because a ref with some sense would have done so, because there's no way any player should act like that towards an official, captain or not.

You can say all that but it doesn't make it true.

We see plenty of charge downs that don't result in contact with the kicker. In fact most. It's up to the person initiating the contact, ie the defender to be responsible for what they do with their body. Just throwing themselves forward with no control isn't responsible. If they're going to do that then they have to ensure they aren't going to make dangerous contact ie to the head or legs of a kicker.

There is no need to ban charge downs, don't be so over the top. We see plenty of them. We saw plenty of both successful and unsuccesful attempts at charge downs during the Wigan v Saints game. None of them put the kicker in danger. Once again, the injury is irrelevant. The contact isn't.

As I said before, it's the same as a player jumping to catch a high ball ie a player in a vulnerable position. There is additional responsibility on defenders to not make dangerous contact.

Graham made contact with leg of the kicker. That's dangerous contact. In the same way as making contact with a player in the air that tips them upside down is dangerous contact. In the same way as a high tackle is dangerous contact. The vast majority of incidents of these are unintentional.

Should unintentional high tackles be penalised?

So you'd allow high tackles? Or are you in 4 Nations mode again where you'll blindly state black is white over and over again?


Peter Sterling, Allan Langer and Geoff Toovey didn't have to handle anything like what the current half backs have to.

Just because a rule exists - it doesn't mean it's a good one.

And I don't see why one position is protected over others. I mean, Graham took a ton of stick all game. His head was carved open like a melon. Yet a scrum half with nary a mark on him is guarded like the last panda in China.

Can you read?



Ridiculous.

Threads like these really make me laugh. You'll happily lambast Graham from a distance for unintentionally hurting the kicker. But I'd lay my mortgage on not one of you being anything other than OUTRAGED if he we wearing England colours or your own team's and the ref pinged such for a match-losing penalty.

It's there to protect the players. It's not a bad law at all, Graham could have broken the guys leg, just because he didn't doesn't mean it's not foul play. It's the same reason players get sent off in football for tackling with there feet off the ground.

I can't agree with that.

You said any action that was unintentional. The vast majority of high tackles are unintentional.
Would you allow those deemed to be unintentional to go unpenalised?



How many tackles did they have to make? How many plays did they actually put on? How many times did they take the ball to the line?
I don't have the stats, I doubt they exist, but I'd wager it was far fewer than current half backs do.

How many players of Graham's combined size, power and speed were they up against?
How many impacts did they take from the likes of the huge players that are standard today?

It's not a criticism of them at all, and I'm sure they'd have adapted to the current situation. But just because they took a few high shots back then don't underestimate the massive repeated impacts that modern players receive.

All of which is OT anyway, but I suppose it helps divert the discussion away from the point where you got carried away in your defence of Graham and suggested high tackles should be allowed.

I didn't realise 'kicker' was a recognised playing position in Rugby League?

'Kickers', not half-backs, are offered a specified form of protection when kicking due to their vulnerability, in particular to the legs, and due to there having been some horrific injuries caused to exposed kickers.


Rubbish. I'd think he was a complete moron for having made such a challenge. Just as I thought Ben Flower was a moron for that second punch. Just as I thought Edwards was a moron at Wembley in 1994. Just as I thought Morley was a moron at the JJB in 2003. And the rest...

Of course, if, say, Micky McIlorum challenges wee Jonny Lomax in this fashion at some point you'll be fine & dandy with it?

I haven't lambasted Graham for his action on the kicker. I've said it should be a penalty.

I also said I can understand the frustration because other similar incidents go unpenalised.

I'm not arguing about the legality of the rule. I just don't think we should be getting involved in arbitrary protections for some players performing certain actions whilst others can go fish.

Heaven knows how many injuries are a direct result of unintentional contact at the wrong place at the wrong time etc. Graham's face looked like it had been through a meat-slicer at the end of that game. Don't recall too many penalties going his way. Or any other forward for that matter.

All I know is that ending was farcical and a very bad advert for the game. For years we've been crying out for forwards who've had the guts and determination to not just compete in the NRL but rise to the very top. Now, it seems, we don't want that at all...

Mugwump must have really enjoyed watching Jason Hooper!!

James Graham has a history of back chatting Refs and being a poor Sport.
I suspect he will not end this season as the Captain.
He has plenty of skills but he also has plenty of negatives about his game.
Since his move to the NRL just four things.
Using 5 cans of Vaseline on his legs (a player scooped it up and rubbed it in his face) The NRL had to tell him to give it up.
Biting a players ear cost his team big time.
Arguing with every decision even when he is obviously wrong.
Yelling at players in his thick Northern accent "Run at me son, run at me" he looks like a mug saying that,

That's all well and good but wasn't the point at all. Yes the call was 50/50 and could have gone either way.

Grahams behaviour afterwards was an utter disgrace and embarrassing.

Do Wigan fans still think flower was hard done by - wow!

I can't blame him over this. It was a fair attempt at a charge down. What happened after that was pure accident, maybe shoud be on report and nothing else.

If Graham's head looked like it'd been through a meat slicer, perhaps he should try leading with his head when he goes into contact a little less...