If we are penalising play that every single supporter would hope one or more of their players would emulate with minutes left and a point lead then the game has taken a wrong turn somewhere.

Undoubtedly coaches and players will now choose less and less to charge down a kick in similar circumstances because it just isn't worth the bother. Another thrilling facet of the game wiped out in favour of 90% and falling Rugby League.

And yes, these are protected halves. The fact that other players also kick doesn't detract from the fact that the overwhelming majority of 5th tackle kicks are put into the hands of half backs.

Maybe we should give them extra padding so their fragile little bodies don't snap.

I won't deny that I'd take Graham back in a heartbeat or that I have a problem with what he did. You can protest the contrary all you like. We both know you'd be lying.

If anything I'd say we're more in need of a "bitter or not?" thread.

Didn't protest anything, merely pointed out that if it wasn't Graham would you be defending it......that you couldn't deny it proves my point,.....so thanks

Taking a kickers legs out after ball has gone has been outlawed in nrl for over 5 years. The rules changed the year lockyer and prince both got serious injuries from it. Steve price was a master at the "accidental" kicker knee breaker. In nrl if your not attempting to tackle the kicker and you make contact it's a penalty every time. The fact most fans and commentators don't know this despite years of penalties for it is somewhat bemusing! Graham was disgraceful and should be dropped as capt. It wa embarrassing to watch as a Rl fan and no doubt enticed the crowds disgusting behaviour, not that doggies crowds need much enticement.

Unfortunately, technically, it was a penalty. Even though he wasn't looking where he was going and was obviously going for a charge down.

The Souths trainer (blue jersey) who obviously said something to Graham inflamed the situation.

He must be so frustrated with officialdom here in Oz and the same video ref that ruled a no try to England to keep the aussies in. Ho hum.

It's another case of officials seeing the effect of a tackle affecting their decision.


If you haven't seen it. Go to a video site and type in.

James Graham Controversial Penalty - Correct Decision?

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)

James Graham is banned for four weeks: tvnz.co.nz/rugby-league-news/bul ... 95?ref=rss Klemmer got three weeks.

James Graham is banned for four weeks: tvnz.co.nz/rugby-league-news/bul ... 95?ref=rss Klemmer got three weeks.

Graham dives at speed at the point he has worked out is where the ball will be kicked. That is the same place as where the leg is. He does not have any know deficiences in his perception of space or distance so when he dived he knew he would make contact with the kicker's legs. He hoped he would block the ball and that was his intention, but from where he dived, he was always going to hit the kicker's legs regardless of whether he blocked the ball. That is why it was dangerous. I think Jammer has played RL before at least a little bit, so I think he wouldn't have needed much thought to KNOW that one of the legs he hit would guaranteed by the standing leg. I understand why he did it, he did his best to throw himself at the ball but in doing so he definitely was reckless as to whether the inevitable impact on the kicker would injure him, and as attacking the kicker's legs is an offence regardless of consequence, he is in the wrong on all counts.

This.

All I need add for Graham's apologists is that Graham pleaded, er, "GUILTY" to making dangerous contact.

I can see he’s trying to charge the ball down and had no intention of taking Reynolds out. However the rules down under don’t allow that sort of contact so you have to say it was reckless. He’s obviously doing what he can to get the win, he just overstepped the mark.

The carry on with the ref afterwards is embarrassing. Sure you can be fed up and angry but the bloke isn’t going to change his mind. Don’t take it out on him because of your mistake.

Never mind that, mugwump must have been the only saints fan, sticking up for Brandon Costin, when he took out sean long's none kicking leg back in 01 or whenever it was.

But he intended to dive full blooded at the place where the kicker would be kicking the ball. The way I see it, regardless of his "intention", he must have known that dive would, 100%, result in some contact with the kicker's legs. He just accepted that as a secondary result of his intention to try to block the ball. That recklessness is why I have a problem with it. I don't think for one second he had an intention to crash into the standing leg but certainly accepted the obvious risk that he well might.

What I am saying is the impact wasn't an accident, even if the serious result sort of was. Leg impact was inevitable and the consequence a risk Graham in that moment decided to ignore.

That is why even by Graham's standards it was particularly stupid, as you'd think he of all people would KNOW that hitting the kicker's legs is an automatic pen 10m in front of the posts. Must've been banking on the inevitable impact being ignored.


indeed.

I think talk of secondary results is daft. It's a game played at speed and you act on instinct. He did not weigh it up and start a nine page thread before deciding what he was going to do.

In the end his head was turned and had no idea he was going to hit the guy. But he hit him, hence the EGP.

If thems the rules then they are the rules. In the end the act of running at the kicker would have been enough to stop the drop goal. Maybe they should suggest that diving is outlawed as really it serves no purpose when you think about it. Better to jump up to block a ball being kicked. Diving forwards gives no value as from the moment you dive you are losing angle and height. Running straight and jumping up like soccer players do for a free kick gives the best change of stopping the ball. Also keeping your eyes open and looking helps alot too.

Don't be silly, he 100% deliberately dived to try to block the kick, "instinct" don't enter into it. And whilst he turned his head away part way through, of course he knew exactly where the kicker was. To say he had "no idea" he was going to hit the kicker is just ridiculous. What - he dived full-blooded straight at the kicker but "had no idea" that this might lead to a collision? You simply can't argue that.

Well I can..

I may not be able to fly, but I can argue a point.

I watced it live on TV & have not changed my opinion, he attempted to charged down a kick & unfortunatley hurt the kicker, if the Aussies don't want thier kickers hurt then don't kick or ban the drop goal, if they penalise accidental contact with the head if your arm moves up of the ball/chest/shoulder then ban players offloading the ball in contact. Rugby league is a hard game & with big men contacting at speed accidents are going to happen deal with it. The game has just about got rid of dangerous & malicious tackles & rightly so, but we are now in danger of sanitising the game to the point where it won't be worth watching. IMO the Aussies are ruining the game with thier reffing of the game, they even repacked a scrum because the defending team hooker struck for & won the ball.
The only thing they got right was banning James for his outburst at the ref (understandable as it was).

Bang on the money, penalised the outcome not what actually happened

With all those qualities he should be playing for wigin. Oh no chance of that he doesn't do drugs.

Maybe some forum posters here should not watch the NRL if they are so out of touch with the progressive rules to protect the players.
Hurting a player by hurling yourself at his legs while he is vulnerable is not much different than a cannonball tackle is it?

Funny how Graham gets in so much grief although he was very lucky with some of his leading into a tackle with his head in last years Grand Final.
There are accidents and then there are players that seem to get involved in these accidents more than their share.

Fair enough then, that particular point is

"dived full-blooded straight at the kicker but "had no idea" that this might lead to a collision"

"Had no idea"? Go on then, present your argument

I usualy watch every NRL game shown on TV in the UK & I am fed up with the Aussies ruining the game I have followed for years. On this one incident my opinion is that Graham has to be allowed to try & stop the kick at goal or what is the point of playing the game? If the NRL had not changed the original rule all he would have had to do was get a touch on the ball to stop the score, now you have to stop the ball going through the posts to stop the point. It has always been part of the game that a kicker risks injury or getting thier kick charged down a balance between risk & reward. While I can agree that some of the very dubious late hits needed to be stopped we are going to far now. The only fair way if you dont want kickers to be tackled is to ban kicking & the drop goal.

You can jump up and try and block the ball being kicked like a charge down or you can tackle the kicker in the conventional way.
You can not take his legs out either intentionally or "accidentally"...
This rule was brought in after several high profile players were badly hurt as their leg on the ground was attacked as they were in the middle of kicking, I think Darren Lockyer was one of these victims.
The rule is similar to taking a player out in the air as he jumps for the ball, cynical defenders can target a vulnerable player in the air and really hurt him.

We want parents to watch a game that does not see players getting four knee rebuilds in a career so that they may want their little Johnny to take up the game, without youngsters taking up the game there will be no Rugby in the future.

But that's just all OTT, isn't it, if you think about it for a second. There are hundreds of attempts at DGs over the years and yet you almost never see such an incident. Almost all attempted charge downs do just that - attempt to charge down THE BALL. When like here a player takes the kicker out it simply has to be dealt with. To suggest the kicker needs to weigh up the risk of several months out and a knee reconstruction, for the reward of a point, is nuts. To suggest Graham needed to weigh up the risk of several games suspended and injuring a fellow pro, for the reward of stopping a DG, is on the money.

Nobody said anything about not wanting kickers to be tackled. Surely you are not seriously suggesting Graham was "tackling" the kicker? And as Graham only got a 1 match ban for the foul whereas his injured opponent has a long spell on the sidelines, if anything you could argue that the punishment nowhere near fits the crime.

I saw 6 games over Easter. 2 live and 4 on TV. Not one had an incident where players hurled themselves at the kickers legs. That includes lots of both successful and unsuccesful chargedowns.

It didn't seem to ruin any of the games. Neither did having a rule to protect catchers in the air or a rule outlawing high tackles.


Have the people who were outraged at the start of this discussion, claiming it wasn't in the rules now changed their position and agreed the referees were right? Or have they not removed their heads from the sand or wherever else they might be stuck?