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?

Also, the ref was clearly 100% in the right in both the penalty award, the rule is crystal, and in where that penalty is taken. Everyone accepts that now. Had Graham and his acolytes not thrown an almighty hissy fit on the pitch, then they would not have wound the crowd up into the hysterical frenzy that ended in the disgraceful scenes we saw. I know Graham was upset that he was costing his team the game, but he knew when he called for help what he had done, and he MUST have known the rule. In trying to blow up in fits of outrage and aggression at the officials, he and his team-mates pretty much directly incited the crowd trouble so far as I'm concerned. He would certainly have been sent straight off for his disgusting behaviour, except the ref did have a functioning brain, knew Graham would cop a ban, and he at least saw no point in poring petrol on Graham's fire.

If you think Graham slid into the kicker to deliberatley injure him then ban him for life, but he did not he simply slid into him on a very wet pitch, it is a risk all kickers take when extending thier legs in the action of kicking. Every player risks serious injury just taking a tackle they only have to land or twist awkward. I think we can't legislate for every thing & have to accept that injurys do happen in an impact sport. You have to allow a player to defend against the kick or get rid of the drop goal you can't have it both ways.

Are you on crystal meth and your brain is fried??
It was never a penalty for starters, there is absolutely no rule that covers awarding a penalty for an accidental clash whilst making a totally legitimate, non reckless/non dangerouus play (the block).
Just because the powers that be won't hold up their hands to say they were wrong doesn't make it right..
The decision weas totally incorrect with regard to the rules of the sport, for you to suggest JG deliberately obstructed or took out the kicker is a nonsense of the highest order.

The number of new match officials next season is wonderful!

OR

as I suspect these "experts" will sit behind their keyboards safe in the knowledge that they've typed stuff which highlights ignorance in so many areas.

Actually reading the rules may be a good place to start for some!

and tell us, who on earth thinks that?




This is one "thing". Just one. Not "everything". We [ihave[/i legislated for it. Graham broke that law, knew he did, and has been penalised for it.


Er, which is why we sensibly put in place rules to minimise the risk to player welfare. Like, er, the rule we're talking about.


But we do have it both ways! We do have drop goals! players are perfectly entitled to defend against drop goals! They do! 99% of the time, perfectly legally!

No.

No. Nice of you to ask.



Are you the Black Knight? You don't actually KNOW the rule, do you?! If it was "never a penalty" why is the rule crystal clear and why did Graham plead "guilty" to breaking it?

Whether that straw man contains any truth, it has no bearing here. I'd say Graham's contact was more reckless than accidental, it's not like he didn't know he was diving straight at an opponent, but that rule bans the contact. It makes no difference if it is "accidental".

Bleedin 'ell, you're a conspiracy theorist! It's a cover up!

The rule's crystal clear, you are arguing without bothering to read it. That's dumb.



You just made that up!! The rule is that if you attempt a charge down (he did) then you cannot make contact with the legs of the kicker (but he did). Which bit of that rule are you having a problem with? Mind you, it has only been in since 1981 so maybe you need more time to get your head around it?




Or would be, had I suggested any such thing, but it is stupidity of the highest order to invent such a straw man and then demolish it. What happened was clear, Graham attempted to block the DG, but instead of jumping high, he stupidly dived low, towards the kicker's legs, and that was a reckless choice, because even though it was not his [iintention[/i to collide with the kicker, he was at least [ireckless[/i that he would do so and was almost certain to do so. But you need to understand, it doesn't matter. You simply CAN NOT contact the kicker's legs if charging down a DG and as Graham did that, it's a penalty.

The seriousness of the injury was bad luck, though definitely foreseeable if a lummox the size of Graham hits a standing leg at speed, but he hasn't been punished for the extreme consequences, he's been punished for what he did, which was making contact with the leg of an opponent while trying to charge down a kick.

I hope that is clear enough for you to get your exciteable little head around. But I won't be addressing any more of your drivel as you have been shown up as having no clue what you are talking about, making up claims I never made, and embarrassingly, despite harping on, not even knowing what the relevant rule is. My work here is done.

I am beginning to despair; we are talking rugby league on here not touch and pass. Hard tackling used to be appreciated and for me it still is and is a fundamental part of the game. All this sh$te about duty of care and consideration of the opponents well being will kill the game. Will big hits be a sending off offence in the future? if so they may as well play the round ball game.

What Graham did was to give his all into preventing a drop goal, you would have expected nothing less from any other player who had the opportunity. he probably had his eyes shut when he made unintentional contact. If anyone should have received a ban it is the referee.

No wonder the game in England is where it is today with some of the comments in this thread.
Uneducated claptrap in many cases.
It was a Penalty clear cut.
Graham seems to have form in injuring players accidentally it seems.

Oh dear.

his head was turned away.

he was attempting a charge down not effecting a tackle, so not sure why people keep quoting the rules for protecting a kicker during a tackle. had he not he would be being slammed for showing lack of effort. for me it was a very harsh call.

The relevant rule is specifically about making contact with kicker's legs in an attempted charge down.

You have no idea it seems.
You can not attack the legs of a kicker in the NRL.
Its that simple, the rule has been around for ages, accidental and the like do not count.
If you come in contact with the kickers leg on the ground its a penalty.
Can you understand that?

Having seen the explanation on the NRL footy show from the ref's involved and their head guy it's pretty obvious the right call was made. I don't believe for one minute that it was intentional but contact was still made. And accidental or not, it should be the responsibility of the player who is diving towards the kicker to ensure they do so in a way that they won't make late contact after the ball has been kicked.

They also clarified the rule which was the reason for the penalty being given infront of the posts.

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