: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:44 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

and anybody with the agility of a locked door isnt going to make it to sl

Too late, Maurie Fa'asavalu already has.

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:49 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Too late, Maurie Fa'asavalu already has.

maurie doesnt have the agility of a locked door, just the survival instinct and common sense

had he gone with reardon he would have likely tried to break it with his face while james graham shouted at said door from the bottom of the stairs

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:23 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

try striking something with your shoulder,

your notdoing much damage are you

so every big hit you see in RL isnt made with the shoulder? dont be daft

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:27 pm  

lurchio wrote:

so every big hit you see in RL isnt made with the shoulder? dont be daft

it is, but it isnt a striking motion from the shoulder

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:33 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

maurie doesnt have the agility of a locked door, just the survival instinct and common sense

had he gone with reardon he would have likely tried to break it with his face while james graham shouted at said door from the bottom of the stairs

Don't really want to start going on about him again but...

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:23 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

maurie doesnt have the agility of a locked door, just the survival instinct and common sense

had he gone with reardon he would have likely tried to break it with his face while james graham shouted at said door from the bottom of the stairs

Good one!

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:05 pm  

tvoc wrote:

And legal apparently so I'll just have to be at odds with the game as it stands. So be it.

A headbutt, upper arm, lower arm, elbow, knee, boot to the head would all be deemed illegal but not a shoulder in this instance.

One of the things I have stated before that I like about Bailey is that he comes with "corners" for want of a better word....

IMHO the use of these is perfectly legitimate and the skill of getting them in play is one I have always admired.

: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:14 am  

thebloodbath wrote:

No. Simply. If you attack the head, that's illegal. If you perform a sloppy tackle, swing a high one, that's illegal. If someone leans their head in, or moves their body into a different position, just before the point of impact, that's up to them. But should that be illegal? No. It's rugby league, it's meant to be played tough. Those slight margins are the rough and tough that's part and parcel of playing rugby. If you start down that route, what about injuries to the head or face that occur after the point of impact i.e. a head injury sustained when the player hits the floor, or from the impact of a secondry tackler?

This game is tough. This game is rough. I love it.

Penalties are awarded if tacklers raise a player's legs above the horizontal. Having your legs raised above the horizontal in itself does not cause injury, but it is rightly recognised that there is the potential for these tackles to cause serious injuries.

Tackles directed just below the head are not penalised even though we know that many of these tackles end up striking the head.

I cant see the difference.

: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:19 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

maurie doesnt have the agility of a locked door, just the survival instinct and common sense

had he gone with reardon he would have likely tried to break it with his face while james graham shouted at said door from the bottom of the stairs

Spot on! I've been broadband-less for most of last week and so missed the opportunity to post about just how much of a Fielden-esque 'offer a lot deliver so little' performance he gave in the 'biff' stakes! A loud-mouthed, bottleless s***. There, rant over!

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:23 am  

I dunno if this has been mentioned, anyways: Potter is fuming that Bailey's hit wasn't deemed as illegal and Bailey has no case to answer to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ma ... -faasavalu It goes into more detail in this weeks League Weekly. In that article it says that Potter put together a video at his weekly press meeting in relation to the hit, and took them through step-by-step as why it was an illegal hit. He moans: "Apparently you are allowed to hit blokes 'accidentally' on the head," said the Saints coach, Mick Potter. "It's a real issue for me that you can get away with that. I understand it's a contact sport but I'm a little disappointed that he wasn't charged at least with a careless or reckless tackle." Fa'asavalu has had to return to hospital for a second set of x-rays on his nose which, according to Potter, "has not yet congealed." The reason why he has gone to this much effort, to the press, is bemusing to say the least. It has been looked at, viewed, and judged. Bailey has no case to answer. Fact. He didn't get penalised it in the game and after much debate has been cleared in the office of the RFL, so why does he think he knows better? Why should his ramblings be valued higher than anyone else? Potter's distain against Bailey has had a fair hearing and maybe he should accept the outcome.......gracefully. I don't see the need to pour more fuel on this fire. It will kick off on Sunday, I don't doubt it, especially if Bailey is fit to play. If Bailey does play, expect fire-works. And see if Graham can level Bailey with a similar hit. Or will Bailey look to get one over on the mad dog who was frothing at the mouth days ago. Blood will spill, scores will be settled, cards will be shown. It will be a low scoring, dramatic, brutal cup-tie.

I dunno if this has been mentioned, anyways: Potter is fuming that Bailey's hit wasn't deemed as illegal and Bailey has no case to answer to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ma ... -faasavalu It goes into more detail in this weeks League Weekly. In that article it says that Potter put together a video at his weekly press meeting in relation to the hit, and took them through step-by-step as why it was an illegal hit. He moans: "Apparently you are allowed to hit blokes 'accidentally' on the head," said the Saints coach, Mick Potter. "It's a real issue for me that you can get away with that. I understand it's a contact sport but I'm a little disappointed that he wasn't charged at least with a careless or reckless tackle." Fa'asavalu has had to return to hospital for a second set of x-rays on his nose which, according to Potter, "has not yet congealed." The reason why he has gone to this much effort, to the press, is bemusing to say the least. It has been looked at, viewed, and judged. Bailey has no case to answer. Fact. He didn't get penalised it in the game and after much debate has been cleared in the office of the RFL, so why does he think he knows better? Why should his ramblings be valued higher than anyone else? Potter's distain against Bailey has had a fair hearing and maybe he should accept the outcome.......gracefully. I don't see the need to pour more fuel on this fire. It will kick off on Sunday, I don't doubt it, especially if Bailey is fit to play. If Bailey does play, expect fire-works. And see if Graham can level Bailey with a similar hit. Or will Bailey look to get one over on the mad dog who was frothing at the mouth days ago. Blood will spill, scores will be settled, cards will be shown. It will be a low scoring, dramatic, brutal cup-tie.