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...

It was a clear penalty. You've never been able to attack the standing leg of a kicker, just like you can't attack the head of a player.
Do we let off 'accidental' high shots? No, we don't. The same logic applies here.

Oy, don't be coming on here talking sense 'n stuff.

Even the commentary team said he was attacking the ball - not the standing leg. Why he would do the latter with his team leading by a hair's breadth with moments to go (knowing full well he'd give away a penalty and likely the game) is something you'll have to explain.

If halves are now entering the field thinking they are entitled to protection and a penalty from unintentional collisions during crucial game-winning periods then we're on a slippery road to a physically neutered game of Rugby League - not to mention the inevitable arrival of professional cheats and divers looking to exploit these circumstances.

There are several clubs in SL currently plagued by injuries - many of which were a direct result of unintentional collisions, twists, turns etc. etc. If the above becomes the norm it won't be long before coaches and officials are seeking some manner of redress for each and every one.

In any case, there isn't a single poster to this thread that wouldn't applaud such an effort if it were their team in said position. There isn't a single poster to this thread who wouldn't be hopping mad if Graham were penalised in similar circumstances wearing his or her club's own colours. Bleeding-hearted protestations to the contrary I'll take with a big fat dose of sodium chloride.

Can't we have a seperate thread? Y'know one for those who think it's a penalty and one for those who don't?

We could call them Believers and Non-Believers or something like that...

The law doesn't just apply to half backs, it applies to every player who is kicking the ball. Graham has a right to try and charge down the kick, but doesn't have a right to make contact with the standing leg, so if he gets it wrong then it's a penalty.

I like Graham and I would hope any player on my team would try something similar in that situation but you can't really complain if if you get it wrong, as Graham did and get penalised.

As for the whole diving thing. It's been a part of the game for decades. Alex Murphy was a master at it.

And if you weren't a Saints fan and Graham being a Saints legend then maybe we could take your view more seriously tgen just you defending a former favourite.

If it was any other Canterbury player would you even be arguing the point? I doubt it.