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!