The Good Guys get up Again: Queensland 38, New South Wales 10.

[El Presidente]

First blood to the good guys.......Queensland maroons.... (38/10) in this three game series of State against State in Rugby League. 

For those overseas think Manchester City V Manchester United (x tenfold) or Alabama vs. Auburn or Dallas V Skins (x 10) 

New South Wales "Blues" were penalised early for the grub act of deliberately taking out our best player in the opening minutes. 

Tough game until we ran away with it late. 

Bring on game two 

 

[WarriorPrincess]

Queenslander..........

[MoeFOH]

Another Blues debacle. You've got give it to us for creativity. We come up with a new way to botch it every year. 🫣

That said, spectacle ruined by send-off. 13 v 12 for 70mins in Origin. Non-event. I think if it's going to be Clubland rules for Origin then the rules need changing. Foul play that warrants a send off should see you be able to have that player replaced on the field but you lose a bench player. And the other team gets to activate an 18th man for free. Much better for the paying punter and overall audience in general. 

[Ken Gargett]

the forces of evil have been repelled by the white hats. again.

what a bunch of thugs. clearly the coach had told them to target our bloke and they nearly killed him with a late shot to an unprotected head. some of the garbage coming out of the south about how perhaps a sin bin???? give me a break. he should be banned for life. sadly, he'll get a month. when he slithers off to rugby (among all the stupidity shown by the muppets in charge of aussie rugby, paying this 20 year old moron a fortune to change codes is the second worst decision they have ever made - bringing the toxic hobbit back can never be knocked off number one - and they deserve him. in rugby, he'd have been gone for the year. 

but the best piece of idiocy, perhaps the dumbest comment i have read on any forum anywhere ever, including the fruitbats political forums, was some bloke who was absolutely incensed about the incredibly poor sportsmanship shown by Qld. apparently, he was of the view that when we finally had the game won - only really the last ten minutes - it was disgraceful and unsporting and against god for us to keep trying to score. we should have had the good grace to leave it at that. there is not a rubber room that does not deserve him. 

[WarriorPrincess]

Joseph take a bow ... one way to let your team and state down on debut 

Karma is a b#tch 

[Ken Gargett]

10 hours ago, MoeFOH said:

Another Blues debacle. You've got give it to us for creativity. We come up with a new way to botch it every year. 🫣

That said, spectacle ruined by send-off. 13 v 12 for 70mins in Origin. Non-event. I think if it's going to be Clubland rules for Origin then the rules need changing. Foul play that warrants a send off should see you be able to have that player replaced on the field but you lose a bench player. And the other team gets to activate an 18th man for free. Much better for the paying punter and overall audience in general. 

whilst i normally find everything you say reasoned and reasonable, on this occasion, i could not disagree more. the guy committed the crime. he should have been sent off. had it not, it would have damaged rugby league. 

if the game is serious about reducing brain injuries, rewarding a team by almost encouraging that level of utter grubbiness, thuggery and stupidity by allowing the bloke to be replaced will completely undo that. they deliberately set about taking out our top player. and they should be rewarded? nooooooooo. 

all that would do would provide certain teams with a licence to take out good players. the bloke's brain is not saying, don't worry, i got this from origin not clubland so it is okay. you either wipe it out of the game or not. how many parents watching that last night said, soccer for you, little johnny. 

all this sky is falling crap and we need to change the rules, that we are hearing, this was the first send off in nearly 130 games that was within the first hour. and only six send-offs in total. it is hardly a regular occurrence (two of those in that game last year when luai and walsh were basically being children in the last minute when the game was over and another on the last play when gordie called harrigan a cheat - so three serious send-offs in 130 games).

so basically this, an early send-off, has happened once in 130 games. he and nsw got exactly what they deserved. and i really like to think that had it been a qlder who committed such savage stupidity that i would feel exactly the same. 

 

10 hours ago, WarriorPrincess said:

Joseph take a bow ... one way to let your team and state down on debut 

Karma is a b#tch 

no wonder rob had to leave the room. 

[Jimmy2]

Nothing more worse than that hit than listening to The Boss….

[MoeFOH]

9 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

it would have damaged rugby league. 

if the game is serious about reducing brain injuries

Please. You genuinely believe the game is serious about reducing brain injuries while simultaneously encouraging the speed and intensity of the game every year? Laughable. If they were serious about it they'd enforce much stiffer bans and fines. Which won't stamp it out anyway and is unfeasible because club rosters would never cope, thus degrading the product. A product which, after all, is largely founded and marketed upon its brutality and toughness - doubly so with Origin. The only way to truly do anything effective is to fundamentally change the way the game is played. That also is not going to happen. The amount of HIA's in the regular season alone is huge. It's not getting better because players are faster and more explosively built and rushing defence is a legitimate tactic. Maybe that should be outlawed? Again, fundamental change that is not going to happen and still only one facet of a fast-moving contact sport. But if they were serious... ???

Also, to my point about the rule change: Being a man down on the bench while the other team gets a fresh player and retains their full complement on the bench is not a reward. Not at all. Especially when the player sent off also has a lengthy match ban coming his way. Jesus, these days, a lopsided penalty count or possession stat is usually more than enough to provide a decisive advantage. So why not at least preserve the spectacle we all came for - 13v13? These tackles will happen no matter the intent. More often than not there is no ill intent. And this is always going to be argued based upon which side of the fence you sit. Ergo your comment: 

9 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

and i really like to think that had it been a qlder who committed such savage stupidity that i would feel exactly the same. 

You'd like to think so, but in reality you're not certain. No one can be. 

And the fact that this happens rarely in Origin only bolsters my point; for the majority of its history it has been refereed quite differently to club games. I'm sure there's plenty of cases in the archives that warranted send-offs under the current policies or even the policies of their day. 

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, MoeFOH said:

Please. You genuinely believe the game is serious about reducing brain injuries while simultaneously encouraging the speed and intensity of the game every year? Laughable. If they were serious about it they'd enforce much stiffer bans and fines. Which won't stamp it out anyway and is unfeasible because club rosters would never cope, thus degrading the product. A product which, after all, is largely founded and marketed upon its brutality and toughness - doubly so with Origin. The only way to truly do anything effective is to fundamentally change the way the game is played. That also is not going to happen. The amount of HIA's in the regular season alone is huge. It's not getting better because players are faster and more explosively built and rushing defence is a legitimate tactic. Maybe that should be outlawed? Again, fundamental change that is not going to happen and still only one facet of a fast-moving contact sport. But if they were serious... ???

Also, to my point about the rule change: Being a man down on the bench while the other team gets a fresh player and retains their full complement on the bench is not a reward. Not at all. Especially when the player sent off also has a lengthy match ban coming his way. Jesus, these days, a lopsided penalty count or possession stat is usually more than enough to provide a decisive advantage. So why not at least preserve the spectacle we all came for - 13v13? These tackles will happen no matter the intent. More often than not there is no ill intent. And this is always going to be argued based upon which side of the fence you sit. Ergo your comment: 

You'd like to think so, but in reality you're not certain. No one can be. 

And the fact that this happens rarely in Origin only bolsters my point; for the majority of its history it has been refereed quite differently to club games. I'm sure there's plenty of cases in the archives that warranted send-offs under the current policies or even the policies of their day. 

they may not be very good at it but they are certainly working towards that - reducing head injuries. potentially crippling litigation is seeing to it, if nothing else. ten, twenty, thirty years, that might have got a penalty, little else. the fact that now it gets a send off and a four game ban shows that they are working towards it. it has come a long way - sure, still a long way to go, but these things don't happen overnight. there was a time when replacements were not permitted. so if you got injured, you tried to hold on and stayed on the field until you could take out a member of the opposition. we are well past that. 

agree that origin usually ref'd differently and because of that, they have created a rod for their own backs. perhaps they are attempting to rectify that. 

it is a violent game. of course they can't stamp out everything but that does not mean an effort is not being made. we have seen it in club and origin.

the point was made last night that one of the key reasons that the game is so much faster these days, and to a degree also more skilful, is that players no longer have to go into every tackle worried about losing their head. it allows them to play with speed and skill, rather than the caution of many years. we have a better game for it - unless it is the thuggery of old that one is after and in that case, go and watch cage fighting. 

what i mean by rewarding a team by allowing a replacement if a player is sent off is partly that it greatly diminishes the penalty for acts like we saw last night and therefore greatly increases the likelihood of them, as the player knows he has a safety net. also, the extreme is that there are teams, players, coaches who will push it. imagine you have a deciding origin game, and the opposition has a wally lewis or Andrew johns or reece walsh. so you pick a third rate gorilla in your side. he commits an act like last night and gets sent. but he can be replaced and meanwhile the opposition loses lewis, johns, walsh etc. which side is better off? the gorilla might get a few weeks but he'd no doubt get a reward from the club. if you think clubs won't do things like that, look at salary cap cheating and all the rest of the crap.

think back to the AFL when the Lions won three in a row. Collingwood thugs, after the event, talked openly how they went out there in the grand final to take Jonathan Brown out of the game as soon as possible after kick off. they knew they'd get five or six weeks but everyone was fine with that because they would have a premiership. they flattened brown early with everything up to the kitchen sink. the problem was that Brown was made of granite. got up a bit dazed, took note of those who had been the aggressors and proceeded to blow them off the park. clubs will do all manner of appalling crap to win. 

if you think it unlikely, there are a great many stories from the past about players heading on to the field with instructions of just that. famous example when manly (i think) got a well known pom to come out to play. well known hard man, read thug (i was told all this by a Sydney journo who was a souths insider). first game was against souths who were one of the top teams. bobby mccarthy their star at the time in great form. come kick off, the pom tells the kicker to go deep. they usually went short in those days. go deep and high. kicker does. they make the first tackle down near the opposition line and the pom runs up and asks if he got the right bloke. they ask what is he talking about. meanwhile, back near half way, mccarthy is lying unconscious on the ground having been king hit from behind. no tv at the time. not even a penalty. you remove the threat of a send off and you open the gates to more thuggery. 

preserving the spectacle? how many parents took their kids or had them in front of the tv, qld and nsw, and were hoping to see blatant thuggery like that? not many i suspect. that is not what anyone came to see. sure, 13 v 13 is ideal but we all know that there is the potential for stupidity to reduce a side by send off. should we also cut out sin bins? that is 13 on 12. just for not quite as long. a full send off has only ever been for a lengthy period once in origin's history. it is hardly a regular problem. what he did would have him in jail if on a street. he should get a pat on the knuckles for it because it is on the field? 

last night, there was clearly intent to injure. if not, don't go through with it. the bloke did not have the ball. shoulder to the head of a defenceless player. it was clearly reckless at the very least, which breaks the laws. you don't want the penalty, don't commit the crime. 

what annoys me is that sure, sualli committed the offence and he should have been marched but there is no one blaming the coaching set up at nsw. i have little doubt that this all stemmed from them. sualli is a 20 year footballer and hardly the brightest bloke going around. the coach gets old nsw greats involved in revving up the team and half of it seemed to be muppets like benny elias talking about taking walsh out of the game. no doubt that was also a plan. martin and sualli in the first 7 minutes both with late hits on walsh? no way on earth that the coaching wasn't involved. they may not have actually said, take his head off but they have wound the kid up and sent him out there. what on earth did they expect? 

nsw got what it deserved. 

[westg]

Absolutely loving it. Give them what they deserve. What a POS, giving that boy a clothes line. No neck no brains , inbreeding from the depths of Collingwood that much I am sure of. Scum of the earth. As if I could not dislike that team anymore. Great win. If you are NSW supporter. In ya Faaaaace. You horrible humans!

[Ken Gargett]

4 hours ago, westg said:

Absolutely loving it. Give them what they deserve. What a POS, giving that boy a clothes line. No neck no brains, inbreeding from the depths of Collingwood that much I am sure of. Scum of the earth. As if I could not dislike that team anymore. Great win. If you are NSW supporter. In ya Faaaaace. You horrible humans!

as ever, Westie, most eloquently put. 

[MoeFOH]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

they may not be very good at it but they are certainly working towards that - reducing head injuries. potentially crippling litigation is seeing to it, if nothing else. ten, twenty, thirty years, that might have got a penalty, little else. the fact that now it gets a send off and a four game ban shows that they are working towards it. it has come a long way - sure, still a long way to go, but these things don't happen overnight. there was a time when replacements were not permitted. so if you got injured, you tried to hold on and stayed on the field until you could take out a member of the opposition. we are well past that. 

agree that origin usually ref'd differently and because of that, they have created a rod for their own backs. perhaps they are attempting to rectify that. 

it is a violent game. of course they can't stamp out everything but that does not mean an effort is not being made. we have seen it in club and origin.

the point was made last night that one of the key reasons that the game is so much faster these days, and to a degree also more skilful, is that players no longer have to go into every tackle worried about losing their head. it allows them to play with speed and skill, rather than the caution of many years. we have a better game for it - unless it is the thuggery of old that one is after and in that case, go and watch cage fighting. 

what i mean by rewarding a team by allowing a replacement if a player is sent off is partly that it greatly diminishes the penalty for acts like we saw last night and therefore greatly increases the likelihood of them, as the player knows he has a safety net. also, the extreme is that there are teams, players, coaches who will push it. imagine you have a deciding origin game, and the opposition has a wally lewis or Andrew johns or reece walsh. so you pick a third rate gorilla in your side. he commits an act like last night and gets sent. but he can be replaced and meanwhile the opposition loses lewis, johns, walsh etc. which side is better off? the gorilla might get a few weeks but he'd no doubt get a reward from the club. if you think clubs won't do things like that, look at salary cap cheating and all the rest of the crap.

think back to the AFL when the Lions won three in a row. Collingwood thugs, after the event, talked openly how they went out there in the grand final to take Jonathan Brown out of the game as soon as possible after kick off. they knew they'd get five or six weeks but everyone was fine with that because they would have a premiership. they flattened brown early with everything up to the kitchen sink. the problem was that Brown was made of granite. got up a bit dazed, took note of those who had been the aggressors and proceeded to blow them off the park. clubs will do all manner of appalling crap to win. 

if you think it unlikely, there are a great many stories from the past about players heading on to the field with instructions of just that. famous example when manly (i think) got a well known pom to come out to play. well known hard man, read thug (i was told all this by a Sydney journo who was a souths insider). first game was against souths who were one of the top teams. bobby mccarthy their star at the time in great form. come kick off, the pom tells the kicker to go deep. they usually went short in those days. go deep and high. kicker does. they make the first tackle down near the opposition line and the pom runs up and asks if he got the right bloke. they ask what is he talking about. meanwhile, back near half way, mccarthy is lying unconscious on the ground having been king hit from behind. no tv at the time. not even a penalty. you remove the threat of a send off and you open the gates to more thuggery. 

preserving the spectacle? how many parents took their kids or had them in front of the tv, qld and nsw, and were hoping to see blatant thuggery like that? not many i suspect. that is not what anyone came to see. sure, 13 v 13 is ideal but we all know that there is the potential for stupidity to reduce a side by send off. should we also cut out sin bins? that is 13 on 12. just for not quite as long. a full send off has only ever been for a lengthy period once in origin's history. it is hardly a regular problem. what he did would have him in jail if on a street. he should get a pat on the knuckles for it because it is on the field? 

last night, there was clearly intent to injure. if not, don't go through with it. the bloke did not have the ball. shoulder to the head of a defenceless player. it was clearly reckless at the very least, which breaks the laws. you don't want the penalty, don't commit the crime. 

what annoys me is that sure, sualli committed the offence and he should have been marched but there is no one blaming the coaching set up at nsw. i have little doubt that this all stemmed from them. sualli is a 20 year footballer and hardly the brightest bloke going around. the coach gets old nsw greats involved in revving up the team and half of it seemed to be muppets like benny elias talking about taking walsh out of the game. no doubt that was also a plan. martin and sualli in the first 7 minutes both with late hits on walsh? no way on earth that the coaching wasn't involved. they may not have actually said, take his head off but they have wound the kid up and sent him out there. what on earth did they expect? 

nsw got what it deserved. 

 

I probably should have taken my chips off the table at this 

5 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

whilst i normally find everything you say reasoned and reasonable

When I say the spectacle, I mean 13v13 and a true contest. After 7 mins here, there was only one result possible unless Qld also suddenly had a player sent off. Of course no one goes to or watches the game to see someone knocked out, especially someone with such dazzling eyebrows. But the real truth of the matter is that if Suaalii is a split second earlier and an inch lower at point of contact we are all lauding a tremendous hit. Watch the replay. The margin for error on a moving target at that pace is miniscule. Play out the way it did, and everyone is baying for blood. You can only have it both ways by being willing to admit that this is what the game encourages (big hits, etc) and the players go into knowing it's a highly dangerous sport - and they are well paid to do so. Being knocked out is the least of it when you consider something like the Alex McKinnon case. The initiatives they took in outlawing the upending tackle is perhaps something they should deploy here - e.g. lowering the legal point of contact much further. Right now, Origin or not, that type of tackle and its unfortunate outcome will continue to happen regardless of it being a send-off or not. In that regard, which is my point, the game is doing nothing to reduce injury or protect players. All they did was ruin game 1 of their showpiece. 

By the by, I have no dog in the Suaalii fight. Quite the opposite. He's a Rooster and I'm a Souths supporter - he came through our ranks before the Chooks poached him. Enough said. Personally, I would not have picked anyone going to Union next year, anyway. Daft disrespect to players committed to the NRL code. And he's not playing that well to deserve a spot over a Best or a Ramien or someone of that ilk. Of all the woeful decisions Souths have made in recent times, he's one decision they can point to as a win. God knows we need one.  

[westg]

I stopped reading at a split second earlier and inch lower. I do agree with Ken, normally reasoned and reasonable. That was a shot from a first class sniper. You cannot do that and make any excuse for it. I have never seen anyone's head and neck snapped back like that in any sport.  

 

[Ken Gargett]

21 minutes ago, MoeFOH said:

 

I probably should have taken my chips off the table at this 

When I say the spectacle, I mean 13v13 and a true contest. After 7 mins here, there was only one result possible unless Qld also suddenly had a player sent off. Of course no one goes to or watches the game to see someone knocked out, especially someone with such dazzling eyebrows. But the real truth of the matter is that if Suaalii is a split second earlier and an inch lower at point of contact we are all lauding a tremendous hit. Watch the replay. The margin for error on a moving target at that pace is miniscule. Play out the way it did, and everyone is baying for blood. You can only have it both ways by being willing to admit that this is what the game encourages (big hits, etc) and the players go into knowing it's a highly dangerous sport - and they are well paid to do so. Being knocked out is the least of it when you consider something like the Alex McKinnon case. The initiatives they took in outlawing the upending tackle is perhaps something they should deploy here - e.g. lowering the legal point of contact much further. Right now, Origin or not, that type of tackle and its unfortunate outcome will continue to happen regardless of it being a send-off or not. In that regard, which is my point, the game is doing nothing to reduce injury or protect players. All they did was ruin game 1 of their showpiece. 

By the by, I have no dog in the Suaalii fight. Quite the opposite. He's a Rooster and I'm a Souths supporter - he came through our ranks before the Chooks poached him. Enough said. Personally, I would not have picked anyone going to Union next year, anyway. Daft disrespect to players committed to the NRL code. And he's not playing that well to deserve a spot over a Best or a Ramien or someone of that ilk. Of all the woeful decisions Souths have made in recent times, he's one decision they can point to as a win. God knows we need one.  

i agree with most of this. as a broncs fan (for reasons unfathomable, my nephew decided to become a souths fan as a kid - he was immediately banished), no love for either the roosters (especially) or souths. i was surprised he was picked. and he proved it a dud decision. 

agree it was split second, but that is irrelevant. the old argument, 'your honour, i only fired a warning shot. not my fault he moved. if he held on for a split second, i'd have missed', is not saving anyone. it is on him to get it right. he did not. he therefore must accept the consequences. split second or not. sure, not alex mckinnon level but i think you are unfairly diminishing it. it very easily could have been. if it had broken walsh's neck, or caved in his jaw/cheekbone/whatever, do you think we'd be arguing?

as for not doing anything, i think i have shown that is absolutely not true. perhaps not enough and not quickly enough, but the game is so different to 20, 30, 50 years ago. so it should be. and in the future, it will be again. 

we love the fair and even contest but so much of sport is not that. and so much happens in games to tilt this as well. this is just one thing. but for me, this is one time when they got it right. we just have to hope they keep getting it right. surely a player's safety and health comes before evening the contest. half the problem is that they are so inconsistent so when something happens that they do nail, people scream (not entirely unjustly) about unfairness. may was not even penalised for breaking walsh's cheekbone earlier this year (all very well, the ref's association later saying we got it wrong), so people are screaming that suilli should not be punished. two wrongs... 

fingers crossed they maintain and improve standards, that walsh recovers fully and that sualli buggers off to rugby and is never heard from again.

all from me today. i have a presentation. always fun. 

[MoeFOH]

3 hours ago, westg said:

I stopped reading at a split second earlier and inch lower. I do agree with Ken, normally reasoned and reasonable. That was a shot from a first class sniper. You cannot do that and make any excuse for it. I have never seen anyone's head and neck snapped back like that in any sport.  

Happens almost every week, West, in one form or another. Some go right. Some go wrong. I'm not saying the send-off is wrong for what played out. I'm arguing the current state of play with regards to rules and punishment does nothing or very little to discourage. It will continue to happen. 

And with regards to litigation down the track, I'm sure if there's a case to be made it will go something like: why did you do nothing to lower the point of contact? All the measures now are post-incident. 

[MoeFOH]

3 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

may was not even penalised for breaking walsh's cheekbone earlier this year

Exactly my point. It's happened that recently and it's going to continue. Both the tackles and the double-standards. 

6 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

all from me today. i have a presentation. always fun.

Agreed - good fun. Always enjoying trading blows, so to speak. 

[99call]

Oof, Nasty shot. Only possible mitigation would be the tackled player had lost his footing just before the tackle, and already was in the process of falling, however his head height doesn't change to any significant degree...so yep, a pretty nasty, ugly tackle. 

I think it's important in this to remember why a big hit is a thing of beauty, and it's order of merit. 

1.   Technique. To be able to hit a player chest down, at a force that will both ideally dislodge a ball, and more importantly, but the fear of god in to that player. Affect his confidence in bringing to the line, playing flat, kicking from hand etc.  

2.   Timing. To be able to hit someone at full tilt, with the ball in their hand, whilst insuring you don't either injure yourself, or them..."badly", is a thing of incredible skill. 

3,   Brutality. This is where so many people get it wrong. If you have done 1 & 2 correctly, you will have yourself a beautiful dominating big hit. There shouldn't be need to add in a swinging arm, spear their head into the deck etc, etc. 

I think a lot of people these days, just want to see mindless brutality, which is pretty depressing. Attached it a perfect example of how high the bar is. Moriarty on Farrell. Beautiful text book big hit on first inspection...great speed, great height... but no, it's late and should have been penalised. I think this really makes it clear why people do grubby hits. It's not because they are looking to be super violent, it's because they are simply not talented enough to execute big hits properly. They want the applause, but don't want to do any of the training/hard work. 

 

[MagicalBikeRide]

Easy red lads (from a neutral).