his head was turned away.

he was attempting a charge down not effecting a tackle, so not sure why people keep quoting the rules for protecting a kicker during a tackle. had he not he would be being slammed for showing lack of effort. for me it was a very harsh call.

The relevant rule is specifically about making contact with kicker's legs in an attempted charge down.

You have no idea it seems.
You can not attack the legs of a kicker in the NRL.
Its that simple, the rule has been around for ages, accidental and the like do not count.
If you come in contact with the kickers leg on the ground its a penalty.
Can you understand that?

Having seen the explanation on the NRL footy show from the ref's involved and their head guy it's pretty obvious the right call was made. I don't believe for one minute that it was intentional but contact was still made. And accidental or not, it should be the responsibility of the player who is diving towards the kicker to ensure they do so in a way that they won't make late contact after the ball has been kicked.

They also clarified the rule which was the reason for the penalty being given infront of the posts.

Buggo could you please inform me where I can find the ruling that is relevant to the alleged foul by Graham. I have looked through the international laws but failed to find anything that covers the James Graham incident.

Should I be looking specifically at the NRL rules?

The act of blocking a DG is legitimate and there was no 'foul play' here, JG has not made a dangerous or a reckless play and the rules do not cover such.

Responsibility for tacklers or indeed blockers when injury occurs only seems to be upheld when it suits, we see 'accidental injuries all the time that are never even looked at by the officials nor put on report when they are far more worthy of the tag 'foul play' given the liklihood of occurance. The 'accidental' injury to James graham was never penalised, nor did anyone go on report..as I originally said a fair few pages back, there is no consistancy and double standards are applied aplenty..basically they penalised the outcome rather than the act itself..it's comeplete and utter bullshine

Still yet to see a chargedown attempt that ended up in the legs of the kicker... yet another game ruined obviously.

Hitting a kickers planted leg in then rl is considered reckless play. It has been so for yeas and years.mwe have seen dozens of penalties for exact same thing. It was the correct decision end of. How hard is that to u dr stand? If you don't like the rule blame steve price. He made it an art form to "attempt" to block a kick yet regularly take out the kickers legs. As has been seen by the serious injury it caused Reynolds, it is reckless and prone to causing serious injury.

Quote redex113="redex113"Buggo could you please inform me where I can find the ruling that is relevant to the alleged foul by Graham. I have looked through the international laws but failed to find anything that covers the James Graham incident. Should I be looking specifically at the NRL rules?'" See page 6. Running into a kicker is not deemed as an attempted tackle and is deemed dangerous. The fact he was attempting to block the kick is irrelevant. https://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEdit ... tation.pdf

Quote redex113="redex113"Buggo could you please inform me where I can find the ruling that is relevant to the alleged foul by Graham. I have looked through the international laws but failed to find anything that covers the James Graham incident. Should I be looking specifically at the NRL rules?'" See page 6. Running into a kicker is not deemed as an attempted tackle and is deemed dangerous. The fact he was attempting to block the kick is irrelevant. https://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEdit ... tation.pdf