: Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:37 pm  

Would anybody care to update their views expressed in this thread in light of the "fair" headshot on Maurie last Friday?

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:40 pm  

Harry Pinner wrote:

Would anybody care to update their views expressed in this thread in light of the "fair" headshot on Maurie last Friday?

That referees - from both sides of the globe - are being consistent.

They're consistently wrong IMO, but consistent none the less. Contact with the head, either with arm or shoulder, should be a penalty.

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:43 pm  

Harry Pinner wrote:

Would anybody care to update their views expressed in this thread in light of the "fair" headshot on Maurie last Friday?

Nope. I still agree with what Mr Gilder put.

It's stil a penalty for a high tackle. The tackler has still made contact with the head of the opponent, albeit not intentionally. Bit like tackles where the arm bounces up off the ball and strikes the head.

I'd be surprised if it merited anything more given the predominantly accidental nature of the contact, but it should still be penalised. AFAIK there's nothing in the laws about where the tackler intended the contact to be, just where it was.

Bailey's could have been a penalty for an unintentional high tackle but nothing more. It was missed, like Gilmour's facial on Smith.

Have you changed your mind or do you think the incident was Maury's fault for being too tall/short or running in at the wrong angle?

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:11 pm  

Burrows as we all know is not very tall, and on occasions his technique is that when he runs at people he has a habit of ducking, which then results in taller people tackling him at the wrong point on his body. Maybe if he didnt duck he wouldnt get knocked out that often.

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:14 pm  

welshbullman67 wrote:

Burrows as we all know is not very tall, and on occasions his technique is that when he runs at people he has a habit of ducking, which then results in taller people tackling him at the wrong point on his body. Maybe if he didnt duck he wouldnt get knocked out that often.

I'd hazard a guess that the opposite might apply.

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:42 pm  

welshbullman67 wrote:

Burrows as we all know is not very tall, and on occasions his technique is that when he runs at people he has a habit of ducking, which then results in taller people tackling him at the wrong point on his body. Maybe if he didnt duck he wouldnt get knocked out that often.

Yes, that's right.

It's nothing to do with tacklers not observing their duty of care to a fellow professional at all, it's entirely his fault for being short.

Whose fault is it you're too dumb to spell his name correctly?

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:27 pm  

HE SHOULD WEAR headgear

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:30 pm  

fredie wrote:

HE SHOULD WEAR headgear

From a man who's learnt by bitter experience

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:38 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

Yes, that's right.

It's nothing to do with tacklers not observing their duty of care to a fellow professional at all, it's entirely his fault for being short.

Whose fault is it you're too dumb to spell his name correctly?

The hit against Manly was more to do with the shocking pass to him than anyones duty of care he was just monstered as he didn't have time to brace for impact as he didn't know it was coming.

Burrow gets laid out just as much if not more when he is the tackler not the ball carrier which is more down to poor technique on his part - both incidents against Saints where down to his head being in the wrong place when attempting to tackle.

i love him, he keeps getting back up and going straight for the biggest players legs - i hope Super League and more for his safety he doesn't get too hurt doing it.

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:09 pm  

heart of a lion he gives his all.