Was Jarrad Hayne's knee to the head worse than Cam Smith's grapple last year?

[LukeParkerno1]

Gibbs was intentional, had plenty of time to pull out of it, hence the higher grading. Hayne brushed Goodwin's face with his thigh more than his knee, hence the lower grading.

 

[Cousin Jed]

At least they dragged it out until 1pm to give the illusion that due process was followed.

As if he was going to get anything but a grade 1 charge?

- We can charge him to appease those outraged, but he gets off so that all those who won't turn up to the game if he gets suspended will come.

Win win

 

[dr nick]

Gibbs' was a grade 2 offence.

and like a few other 'knee or leg to body' charges this year that were deemed whilst the ball was in contention, this was graded a grade 1 charge.

 

[meltiger]

So then, a further question.


Was the 8 point try correct?

 

[dr nick]

yes i think any unfair contact that happens after the try is scored, or in the motion of being scored, is due cause for a possible 8 point try.

 

[Patronus]

He was not even charged with the correct offense. I wonder why that was?

He should have been charged with at least a grade one dropping knees offense which carry's 200 base points.

But we would never want to see him suspended.

The question is wrong anyway. It should be is it worse (or the same) than Gibbs' and the answer is yes.

He kneed him in the head not the back and the result of which was to take Goodwin out for a part of the game.

What is worse knees in the back or head? As others have said if it were Billy he would have had the book thrown at him no questions asked. But we can not have the New NRL poster boy made to look bad. So they slap him on the wrist to make it look like they care while they completely undermined their own judiciary system. And people wonder why the Storm said what they did last year.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Contact was made with his lower thigh not the knee. Slow it down and you will see this. First contact is made with his thigh, not knee. There is no way they could charge him with contact with the knee as that was not the first point of contact. Jarryd Hayne did not knee him in the head, and that is exactly what the MRC said, and righly so.

 

[meltiger]

yes i think any unfair contact that happens after the try is scored, or in the motion of being scored, is due cause for a possible 8 point try.

An 8 point try (In difference to a penalty try) is a try + a penalty.


Intended to be awarded when an offence has been commited AFTER the event.


Was the ball in contention or not?


If it was a legit 8 point try, you cannot argue against him being suspended on the basis of the ball being in contention.

 

[Ping Pong]

So then, a further question.


Was the 8 point try correct?

Yes, 100% correct

 

[sparklig]

An interesting decision by rugby league officials to immediately excuse a vital player from a Western Sydney side.

Barry Hall 05?

 

[gostk86]

An interesting decision by rugby league officials to immediately excuse a vital player from a Western Sydney side.

Barry Hall 05?

perhaps, the charge was probably correct as well

perhaps we also saw common sense prevail...nah that cant happen lol

 

[dr nick]

An 8 point try (In difference to a penalty try) is a try + a penalty.


Intended to be awarded when an offence has been commited AFTER the event.

Incorrect. An 8 point try can be awarded for infringements occuring while in the process of scoring a try. If the try is not successfully completed they may award a penalty try.

 

[gostk86]

The ARL 2009 Rule Book States:
If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts after the attempt to convert the try. After this kick has been taken the ball shall be deemed dead and play shall be restarted from the middle of the halfway line. This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down and not any subsequent period.

 

[ringrot]

Its not really fair on the kicker in an 8 point try situation, if the try is scored right in the corner as was the bulldogs, and even though el masri was the kicker, a good chance of missing, then the penalty goal from in front of course goes over, a more fairer way in that situation would be have the first kick halfway between the corner and the closest upright, and then the usual kick from in front.

 

[gostk86]

Its not really fair on the kicker in an 8 point try situation, if the try is scored right in the corner as was the bulldogs, and even though el masri was the kicker, a good chance of missing, then the penalty goal from in front of course goes over, a more fairer way in that situation would be have the first kick halfway between the corner and the closest upright, and then the usual kick from in front.

id rather just 8 point try with no conversions

 

[Ping Pong]

Its not really fair on the kicker in an 8 point try situation, if the try is scored right in the corner as was the bulldogs, and even though el masri was the kicker, a good chance of missing, then the penalty goal from in front of course goes over, a more fairer way in that situation would be have the first kick halfway between the corner and the closest upright, and then the usual kick from in front.

Sorry i don't see how it's unfair on the kicker. The first kick that is taken in a 'possible 8 point try' situation is always the attempt of conversion for the try, which as per every try, is taken in line from where the try was scored. Then next they take the penalty shot which is always taken from right in front of the uprights. Why should as your saying, the kick be brought half-way in field when its scored in the corner, when every other conversion attempt is taken relatively from where the try has been scored??? Sorry to me that doesn't make one bit of sense.

 

[Ping Pong]

An 8 point try (In difference to a penalty try) is a try + a penalty.


Intended to be awarded when an offence has been commited AFTER the event.


Was the ball in contention or not?


If it was a legit 8 point try, you cannot argue against him being suspended on the basis of the ball being in contention.

Sorry this post is wrong.

Penalty try - given when an illegal act has prevented a try from being scored - refs have to be near 100% certain that try was going to be scored to award this. In this situation the try is given and the conversion attempt is taken from infront of the goal posts regarless of where the try would have been scored.

8 Point Try - Given when an infrigement has been made while the attacker is in the act of scoring a try, (in the process of grounding the football) The try is awarded and a conversion attempt is taken relative to where the try was scored. Then a penalty is given and a conversion attempt must be taken from infront of the goal posts.

For an infridgment committed after the try has been scored - the try will be awarded and the ref will caution the player involved, but an additional penalty can't be awarded as the ball is deemed to be dead as soon as its grounded (silly rule)

 

[ringrot]

Sorry i don't see how it's unfair on the kicker. The first kick that is taken in a 'possible 8 point try' situation is always the attempt of conversion for the try, which as per every try, is taken in line from where the try was scored. Then next they take the penalty shot which is always taken from right in front of the uprights. Why should as your saying, the kick be brought half-way in field when its scored in the corner, when every other conversion attempt is taken relatively from where the try has been scored??? Sorry to me that doesn't make one bit of sense.

because of the situation, what if the player taken out like this also gets taken out of the game, if were going to award 8 point trys then lets make them that, not possible ones.

 

[ringrot]

id rather just 8 point try with no conversions

Actually, just make the try worth 6 points and then award the penalty kick from in front of the posts as usual.

 

[Ping Pong]

because of the situation, what if the player taken out like this also gets taken out of the game, if were going to award 8 point trys then lets make them that, not possible ones.

Thats what the 2 points for the penalty is for.
What if a player is taken out illegally in the field of play? Should they automatically be awarded points then??? Does it make a difference just because there in the motion of scoring a try than a player who has been taken out with a swinging arm on there 20 metre line?
It's simple, In an 8 point try situation, the try is awarded and you get the chance to convert your try as per any other try thats scored. Then you get a penalty for the infringment, just like you would if you were fouled on your 20 metre line. The fact is the rule makers have deemed that an additional penalty shot from infront is more than enough of a punishment. And don't forget if the act is serious enough the referee still has the option to send the offending player off

 

[ringrot]

Thats what the 2 points for the penalty is for.

lol yeah duh, but my point was in that position where the try was scored, if its going to be 8 points then make it a possible 8 points not a more impossible one.
I have changed my original view on how that would be fairer, by just simply giving the try 6 points, then awarding a kick from in front, no matter where the try was scored.

What if a player is taken out illegally in the field of play? Should they automatically be awarded points then???

lol Calm down mate, be specific by where you exactly mean 'in field of play,' and how much the player taken out had to do with scoring a possible try, how close it was to the try line etc, did the player taken out have a clear run etc you have to be specific about the circumstances involving the player taken out in the field of play, not just throw out a blanketing statement.

Does it make a difference just because there in the motion of scoring a try than a player who has been taken out with a swinging arm on there 20 metre line?

see above point.

It's simple, In an 8 point try situation, the try is awarded and you get the chance to convert your try as per any other try thats scored.

yeah but like I already said, its not much of a chance for an 8 point try if the try scorer fouled goes over an inch from the side line.

That's why you should just give it 6 points for the try, then just award the kick from in front.

Then you get a penalty for the infringement, just like you would if you were fouled on your 20 metre line. The fact is the rule makers have deemed that an additional penalty shot from in front is more than enough of a punishment

yeah well it could still be tweaked a bit better couldn't it.

And don't forget if the act is serious enough the referee still has the option to send the offending player off

True, but if you simply made it a rule that you cant go in with the legs in these cases when the player is going in low to score, you would avoid the situation of the penalty try being given for this in the first place

Prevention, changing the circumstances that allow these fouls to happen in the first place, instead of just only punishment for them, is always the best solution.

Example, say you work in a factory and you notice there's always a big puddle of water on some part of the floor coming from a hole directly above in the roof that leaks when it rains.

Do you-

A) keep moping up the mess

or

B) fix the hole in the roof.

 

[Ping Pong]

lol yeah duh, but my point was in that position where the try was scored, if its going to be 8 points then make it a possible 8 points not a more impossible one.
I have changed my original view on how that would be fairer, by just simply giving the try 6 points, then awarding a kick from in front, no matter where the try was scored.

How is it a mere impossible 8 point try? In every situation this year where an 'possible 8 point try has been awarded, the kicker has converted on both the conversion and penalty goal attempt, including one from the sideline in game 3 of the state of origin, and another one from about 5 metres from the sideline.
If the kicker isn't good enough to get both kicks then bad luck to them, there team already has received a siginificant advantage from getting an additonal penalty, and as stated above if the case is serious enough, theres a chance the offending player will be sent from the field as well.

lol Calm down mate, be specific by where you exactly mean 'in field of play,' and how much the player taken out had to do with scoring a possible try, how close it was to the try line etc, did the player taken out have a clear run etc you have to be specific about the circumstances involving the player taken out in the field of play, not just throw out a blanketing statement.

Well i used the example of a team being on there own 20 metre line when one of there players gets taken out with a swinging arm as an example twice, and if there on their own 20 metre line then there 80 metres away from scoring a try aren't they?

see above point.

Ok, but it made no sense whatsoever

yeah but like I already said, its not much of a chance for an 8 point try if the try scorer fouled goes over an inch from the side line.

And like I already said, on Friday night was the first time all year that 8 points weren't received from an possible 8 point try. And to say that it would be unlikely that a kicker would get it from the sideline makes me question how much footy you actually do watch, cause if you do you see them kick it from there all the time.

That's why you should just give it 6 points for the try, then just award the kick from in front.

I'm starting to think that the reason you think it's unfair is that it's called an '8 point try' yet your not gauranteed of receiving 8 points. Thats why its now being refered to as a 'Possible 8 point try).
If they called it a penalty try i think you might understand the concept better, as essentially thats what it is. It's a try thats been awarded with an additional penalty for foul play that was detected in the act of grounding the football. The try gets awarded and you get the chance to convert your try like any other try. Then you receive a penalty for the infringment. Why should they now automatically recive 6 points for the try??? But yet they can't refer to it as a penalty try cause they is for something else all together.

yeah well it could still be tweaked a bit better couldn't it.

In my opinion i have no problem with it whatsoever

True, but if you simply made it a rule that you cant go in with the legs in these cases when the player is going in low to score, you would avoid the situation of the penalty try being given for this in the first place

Trust me, when your playing and it seems like things are going at 100 miles an hour, you wouldn't even contemplate something like that, all your thinking about is trying to stop the try.

Prevention, changing the circumstances that allow these fouls to happen in the first place, instead of just only punishment for them, is always the best solution.

They have done this, thats why the penalty try was awarded in the first place, cause they deemed it a dangerous practice.

Example, say you work in a factory and you notice there's always a big puddle of water on some part of the floor coming from a hole directly above in the roof that leaks when it rains.

Do you-

A) keep moping up the mess

or

B) fix the hole in the roof.

Yet again, you've lost me

 

[ringrot]

How is it a mere impossible 8 point try? In every situation this year where an 'possible 8 point try has been awarded, the kicker has converted on both the conversion and penalty goal attempt, including one from the sideline in game 3 of the state of origin, and another one from about 5 metres from the sideline.
If the kicker isn't good enough to get both kicks then bad luck to them, there team already has received a siginificant advantage from getting an additonal penalty, and as stated above if the case is serious enough, theres a chance the offending player will be sent from the field as well.
Well i used the example of a team being on there own 20 metre line when one of there players gets taken out with a swinging arm as an example twice, and if there on their own 20 metre line then there 80 metres away from scoring a try aren't they?
Ok, but it made no sense whatsoever
And like I already said, on Friday night was the first time all year that 8 points weren't received from an possible 8 point try. And to say that it would be unlikely that a kicker would get it from the sideline makes me question how much footy you actually do watch, cause if you do you see them kick it from there all the time.
I'm starting to think that the reason you think it's unfair is that it's called an '8 point try' yet your not gauranteed of receiving 8 points. Thats why its now being refered to as a 'Possible 8 point try).
If they called it a penalty try i think you might understand the concept better, as essentially thats what it is. It's a try thats been awarded with an additional penalty for foul play that was detected in the act of grounding the football. The try gets awarded and you get the chance to convert your try like any other try. Then you receive a penalty for the infringment. Why should they now automatically recive 6 points for the try??? But yet they can't refer to it as a penalty try cause they is for something else all together.
In my opinion i have no problem with it whatsoever
Trust me, when your playing and it seems like things are going at 100 miles an hour, you wouldn't even contemplate something like that, all your thinking about is trying to stop the try.
They have done this, thats why the penalty try was awarded in the first place, cause they deemed it a dangerous practice.
Yet again, you've lost me

Dude I give up, lets just disagree on the 8 point thing, and I think your smart enough to already know what circumstances would have to apply for one being given if the foul happened, in the field of play.

It seems like your just looking for an argument, not a debate about how things could be changed for the better or not.

And if you cant even work out the simple enough analogy I applied at the end of my last post, for why prevention of a fault is much better than a punishment, then sorry your a lost cause.

 

[Ping Pong]

Dude I give up, lets just disagree on the 8 point thing, and I think your smart enough to already know what circumstances would have to apply for one being given if the foul happened, in the field of play.

It seems like your just looking for an argument, not a debate about how things could be changed for the better or not.

And if you cant even work out the simple enough analogy I applied at the end of my last post, for why prevention of a fault is much better than a punishment, then sorry your a lost cause.

No im not looking for an argument, the reason i come onto sites like these are that i enjoy a bit of healthy debate, even if things do get heated some times. I'm here soley to express my opinion on a sport I love so much and to discuss this with other likewise beings. The fact that i don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean im looking argument, it simply means that i don't agree with what your saying. But anyway we'll call this round a draw.

 

[CooperCronk]

No im not looking for an argument, the reason i come onto sites like these are that i enjoy a bit of healthy debate, even if things do get heated some times. I'm here soley to express my opinion on a sport I love so much and to discuss this with other likewise beings. The fact that i don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean im looking argument, it simply means that i don't agree with what your saying. But anyway we'll call this round a draw.

lol

you came on here in support of Haye cos you are an Eels fan. Its just normal to be biased for your team.

However I think Hayne's grading should have been at least Grade 2 not 1.
Contact to the head and temple is unacceptable.

And why was there a special consideration to have his case heard early?

Pretty obvious to me the nrl wanted Hayne to play in the grand final.