TOPIC:

Pav, you’re a budding media “expert”, so stick with that and stay away from the politics of the game. Please explain how you know that NN meant to hurt the guy???

shark 58: Pavelich knows because he has played league football -- you are taught to throw them down as hard as possible so that they run a wee bit slower for the rest of the game.

ArkRoyal wrote: shark 58: Pavelich knows because he has played league football -- you are taught to throw them down as hard as possible so that they run a wee bit slower for the rest of the game.

In my day the tackle was to stop play or to take the ball. Sure, sometimes you hurt people or got hurt. However, if what you say is true, then every single tackler should be reported and suspended. After all, you are not allowed to try to hurt people now.

Shark 58: good one; thirty years, would NN have had a free-kick given against him for carrying the player forward?

In the end you have to be first in for the ball -- or in front -- which I am not so sure they coach with the same passion these days because a lot of caoches like to play on the tactical and strategic defensive.

Looking at it from that point of view, the need to get in for the ball, the PA player deserved the free-kick.

ArkRoyal wrote: Shark 58: good one; thirty years, would NN have had a free-kick given against him for carrying the player forward?

In the end you have to be first in for the ball -- or in front -- which I am not so sure they coach with the same passion these days because a lot of caoches like to play on the tactical and strategic defensive.

Looking at it from that point of view, the need to get in for the ball, the PA player deserved the free-kick.

Are you saying that if you are faster than the man in front you shouldn't catch him? All it deserved was a free kick for in the back. Not a big man tackling a small man. Thats crap as who can Sandilands now tackle to the ground?

In round 1 V Sydney, Nik Nat won a free kick for tackling a Sydney player exactly the same way. The umpire deemed this one holding the ball.

I think it was a free kick for in the back, but after the comments made by MRP chairman Michael Christian, poor old Nik Nat was never going to get a fair tribunal hearing.

To hear that she should be computing his weight and height to the person he was tackling and to adjust for that was comical at best

Pretty sure if it had been a lesser light like Barrass or a Lycett laying that tackle this wouldn't even be in the news....what is it with the media and Nic Nat?........

Freezin wrote: Pretty sure if it had been a lesser light like Barrass or a Lycett laying that tackle this wouldn't even be in the news....what is it with the media and Nic Nat?........

What’s with the media full stop? Some of them are the biggest blight on the game.

LS: as you know, the game has changed so much that with some of the interprtations you can't tackle-- in other words, I am sympathetic to the big SD ruckman.

My original post simply noted that there are many different rationales for tackelling, and, that, Pavelich, in his comments, had pointted to one of those justifications.