Manly Sea Eagles vow to crack down after horror fan footage
The Manly Sea Eagles have condemned fan behaviour that was posted to social media on Monday.
The footage, posted to the creaturesofmanly Instagram account, shows fans on the hill at 4 Pines park partaking in the controversial 'Run It Straight' challenge.
The activity sees opponents charging at each other with the objective to either successfully tackle the opponent or run them over in a hard-hitting collision.
On Saturday night after the Sea Eagles had defeated the Brisbane Broncos, fans decided to turn the steep hill into their arena.
Fans slowly trotted down the hill as others waited at the bottom to tackle them with countless people watching on and cheering.
One man slammed down his drink before taking off down the hill where he was flattened by another individual.
Another was hit just as hard while a third carried so much speed he bowled into the crowd at the bottom who all had their phones recording the chaos.
The Sea Eagles have vowed to step up security with club CEO Tony Mestrov thankfully nobody was seriously injured.
'It's crazy that people will do this type of thing when they know how dangerous and potentially life-threatening it is,' Mestrov said to The Sydney Morning Herald.
'We will ensure our security is more vigilant in patrolling this outside zone after full-time, at all future home games.
'Any spectators who breach our rules by engaging in this type of behaviour will be banned. Full stop. As a club, we will continue to make the match day experience at 4 Pines Park one that is safe and enjoyable for all.'
The footage of Manly fans doing the controversial activity comes after teenager Ryan Satterthwaite died last week while playing the game with friends in Palmerston North, New Zealand.
The 19-year-old was taken to hospital by friends but passed away a day later.
Leading sports neuroscientist Dr Alan Pearce told news.com.au that it was sadly 'only a matter of time' until the viral sport took a life and says if it continues this won't be the last time it does.
'This was a matter of time really as sad as that is to say,' Dr Pearce told news.com.au.
'The concern is that this can happen at any level. Even in the sanctioned 'run it' events someone will probably die in that at some point as well.
'It can't be done safely and when there's kids and teens that see it they like to copy what they see online, and this is something that absolutely not should be copied.
'It is the biggest please do not try this at home disclaimer if I've ever seen one'.
'RUNIT' has become an online viral sensation over the past few months, and has attracted tens of millions of views on various social media platforms.
Videos of the heavy collisions started doing the rounds on social media in January, with 'Run it Straight Official' and 'RUNIT Championship League' turning the trend into a business.
'I just cannot understand how they could take the most violent aspect of sport (contact) and just turn it into a spectacle where the objective is just to try and knock out or hurt your opponent,' Dr Pearce told news.com.au earlier this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
10 minutes ago
- ABC News
Magistrate in Hillcrest jumping castle case to hand down decision
A chapter of the Hillcrest Primary School tragedy may end today, with Magistrate Robert Webster set to hand down his decision in the criminal case, but the story is far from over. It is more than six months since the Devonport Magistrates Court heard evidence in the case against Rosemary Anne Gamble, who is charged with failing in her work health and safety duty over the tragedy on December 16, 2021. Students Zane Mellor, Peter Dodt, Jalailah Jayne-Maree Jones, Addison Stewart, Jye Sheehan, and Chace Harrison died, and three of their classmates were seriously injured when a freak wind tossed a jumping castle across their primary school oval in Devonport in north-west Tasmania. Ms Gamble pleaded not guilty to the charge ahead of a two-week hearing in November. In February, the court heard closing statements from the prosecution and defence lawyers. Some of the victims' family members sat through each day of the hearing, clutching pillows bearing their children's faces and wearing T-shirts printed with their photos. The courtroom was often a scene of tension and heightened emotions as parents' grief, anger and frustration came to the fore. The distressing details and timeline of the tragedy were examined in detail throughout the two-week hearing. The court heard Ms Gamble owned Taz-Zorb, a business that dealt in inflatable amusement devices, and was contracted by the Hillcrest Primary School for its end-of-school-year celebrations on the day of the tragedy. That morning, she and her partner Robert Monte set up their operation on the school's oval, and students began queuing for their turn on the couple's crayon-themed jumping castle. At about 10am, a fierce wind, described by some witnesses as a "mini tornado" and by a weather expert as a "dust devil", swept through the school grounds with devastating effect. It was an otherwise calm and sunny day, and the court heard the couple had used 30cm pegs at four of the castle's eight anchor points to tether it to the ground. The pegs almost immediately failed when the dust devil struck, lifting the castle high into the air. Seven children were inside the castle when it was thrown across the oval, and five of them did not survive their resulting injuries. Another child was waiting in line and died after being struck in the head by the airborne jumping castle blower. The charge alleged Ms Gamble failed to comply with her duty "in a way that exposed the children to a risk of death or serious injury". Crown prosecutor Madeleine Wilson said Ms Gamble failed in several ways to comply with her duty, including by properly failing to anchor the castle to the ground. The Crown also said Ms Gamble had failed to properly train herself or her staff in the proper, safe inflation and operation of the jumping castle. Mr Monte told the court they watched YouTube and taught themselves how to operate the jumping castle after buying it in 2015. "You're f***ing joking," a father said as he stormed out of court during Mr Monte's evidence. Mechanical engineer Roderick McDonald told the court that if star pickets, which were available on the day, had been used at all eight anchor points, the castle would have stayed on the ground. But defence lawyer Chris Dockray SC said it was the defence case that nothing Ms Gamble could have done would have prevented the tragedy on that day, as the dust devil was a freakish and unpredictable weather event. That position was backed in by defence expert witness Professor David Eager from the University of Technology Sydney. "If you hadn't held the event, it wouldn't have happened," he said. During submissions in February, Mr Dockray also targeted Chinese company East Inflatables, the manufacturer of the jumping castle. He said it was East Inflatables' business model to "prey upon people like Ms Gamble" to sell jumping castles. Even if Magistrate Robert Webster does find Ms Gamble guilty, he cannot sentence her to a prison term. The maximum penalty for a category two offence under the Work Health and Safety Act is a $1.5 million fine for a corporation, and a $300,000 fine for an individual conducting a business. If Ms Gamble is found not guilty, she will simply be free to go. But whatever the result, the victims' families will likely soon return to back in court as a coronial inquest is slated to begin once the criminal proceedings conclude. The families also launched a civil class action against the state of Tasmania and Ms Gamble in December last year on the third anniversary of the tragedy. The class action was filed in the Supreme Court of Tasmania by the law firm Maurice Blackburn and alleges the state, as the school's operator, and Taz-Zorb had a duty of care and failed to take reasonable precautions to ensure the children's safety. At the time, principal lawyer Dimi Loannou said the families' grief was a daily experience. "Nothing will erase the suffering or bring back their lost children," she said.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Erin Patterson's responses to five prosecution accusations in mushroom murder trial
On Thursday, crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC launched her cross-examination of Erin Patterson, who is accused of murdering three of her relatives after they ate a beef Wellington she prepared and served. During her questioning, Dr Rogers put several propositions to Ms Patterson, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and attempted murder and maintains the deaths were a tragic accident. Here are some of those accusations and how Ms Patterson responded. During her cross-examination, Dr Rogers targeted Ms Patterson's health, particularly a cancer diagnosis the court has previously heard was fake. Ms Patterson agreed she had wanted the lunch guests to believe she was having treatment for cancer, but disagreed she had told them she had been diagnosed with cancer. "Did you tell people at the lunch that you had cancer?" Dr Rogers asked. "No," Ms Patterson responded. Dr Rogers continued to question Ms Patterson about whether she had told her guests she had cancer, which Ms Patterson continued to deny. The prosecution said the sole surviving guest of the lunch, Ian Wilkinson, had earlier testified that Ms Patterson told the group she had cancer. Dr Rogers then brought Ms Patterson back to her evidence on Wednesday, where she had been questioned by her own defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, about a conversation she had with her guests about cancer. This is part of the transcript: Colin Mandy: And what happened with that conversation about cancer, did it move on to other topics? Erin Patterson: Um, it stayed at that topic at that point. Um, I … Colin Mandy: What did you say about your health? Erin Patterson: So, it was right at the end of the meal and I mentioned that I'd had a - maybe not 'scare' is the right word, but I had an issue a year or two earlier where I thought I had ovarian cancer and had various scans about and related to that. And then, um, I'm not proud of this, but I led them to believe that I might be needing some treatment in regards to that in the next few weeks or months. When asked by Dr Rogers if she told her guests she had upcoming treatment for cancer, Ms Patterson said she could not remember the precise words. "But I do know what I was trying to communicate was that … that I was undergoing investigations around ovarian cancer and might need treatment in that regard in the future," she said. Dr Rogers also put to the accused that she had researched different types of cancer on the internet to "tell a more convincing lie about having cancer". "I mean, theoretically, that's true, but that's not what I did," Ms Patterson said. During the questioning, Dr Rogers put the following statement to Ms Patterson: "I suggest that you never thought you would have to account for this lie of having cancer, because you thought that the lunch guests would die and your lie would never be found out." Ms Patterson denied this accusation, saying "that's not true". Ms Patterson admitted she did not have a lump on her elbow or an appointment at St Vincent's hospital in the weeks before the July lunch in 2023, despite telling her mother-in-law Gail Patterson both of those things. "You didn't have any medical issues to discuss with Gail Patterson at the lunch, did you?" Dr Rogers asked. "I didn't have a legitimate medical reason, no, that's true," Ms Patterson said. When she was asked why she told Gail about these things, Ms Patterson said she didn't want the care Don and Gail had been showing her to stop. "I had initially thought I had an issue with my elbow, I'd had a lot of pain for a number of weeks," she said. "I probably whinged a bit too much to Don and Gail about it, and felt a bit embarrassed by that. "I suggest that you told Gail Patterson that you had a lump in your elbow and had to go to St Vincent's Hospital to plant the seed of you having a serious health issue," Dr Rogers said to Ms Patterson during the hearing. "I'd say no, I don't think that's right, no," Ms Patterson responded. On Thursday, the court was again shown a series of Facebook messages between Ms Patterson and her online friends. In the messages, Ms Patterson vented to her friends about her parents-in-law being reluctant to take sides in a financial disagreement she was having with their son, Simon. In her messages, she recounted her in-laws suggesting prayer and conversation between Ms Patterson and her husband to resolve the matters. Dr Rogers referred to "eye-roll emojis" used in one of the messages and another emoji that Ms Patterson said showed a straight-line smile underneath. Dr Rogers noted that emojis were a deliberate choice made by a user, and asked Ms Patterson what she would call the emojis. "All I can say about it, it's a face with a straight line for a mouth," she replied. "I don't know what I'd call it." "Even though you used it?" Dr Rogers asked. "Yeah," Ms Patterson replied. Dr Rogers takes her to another emoji after a reference to prayer again in the message. They disagreed about whether it was an eye-roll emoji. "There's a better eye-roll emoji than these … I can't see anything about eyes rolling in there," Ms Patterson said. Dr Rogers suggested Ms Patterson was "mocking" the advice from her in-laws in some of these messages, including the religious aspects of that advice. "I wasn't mocking, I was frustrated," Ms Patterson said. Dr Rogers took Ms Patterson to evidence given by one of her Facebook friends, who told the court the accused had told them she was an atheist and found her husband's religious background difficult. Ms Patterson denied this. "So, your evidence is that you did not say or post that you were an atheist?" Dr Rogers asked. "No, I didn't do that," Ms Patterson replied. During the prosecution's cross-examination on Thursday, Ms Patterson was shown several photos of mushrooms sitting on a dehydrator rack, including some balanced on scales. When asked about the images, Ms Patterson said she "probably" took them but had no memory of doing so. Dr Rogers told the court fungi expert Tom May's evidence was that the mushrooms depicted on a tray in one of the photos were "consistent with Amanita phalloides [death cap mushrooms]". "I suggest that you were weighing these death cap mushrooms so that you could calculate the weight required for the administration of a fatal dose for one person. Agree or disagree?" Dr Rogers asked Ms Patterson. "Disagree," Ms Patterson replied. Dr Rogers suggested to Ms Patterson that the mushrooms depicted in the photo were death cap mushrooms that the accused had foraged in Loch after seeing a post on iNaturalist. Ms Patterson replied, "that's not correct". Nanette Rogers: You deny that these are death cap mushrooms? Erin Patterson: That's correct, I don't think they are. Dr Rogers also put to Ms Patterson that the reason she had lied to police about never owning a dehydrator was because she knew she had used it to prepare death cap mushrooms for the lunch. Ms Patterson denied this. Dr Rogers then suggested that Ms Patterson was "very keen to dispose of any evidence that might connect you with the possession of death cap mushrooms". "No, I didn't know they'd been in it," Ms Patterson said. Dr Rogers put to Ms Patterson that she had deliberately used foraged mushrooms in the beef Wellington and that those foraged mushrooms were death cap mushrooms. "I did not deliberately put death cap mushrooms in the meal," Ms Patterson said. During the questioning, the prosecution put to Ms Patterson a suggested reason for her lying to police about owning a dehydrator. "You lied, because you knew if you'd told the police the truth, it would implicate you in the deliberate poisoning of your four lunch guests," Dr Rogers said. "No, no, it's not true," Ms Patterson responded. Dr Rogers also put to the accused that she had lied about owning a food dehydrator because "you knew you had used the dehydrator to prepare death cap mushrooms to include in the lunch". Ms Patterson also denied that, saying "I didn't know that". She was then asked if she agreed or disagreed that she lied about dehydrating mushrooms because she knew if she "told police the truth then that would implicate you in the poisoned lunch". "I agree that I lied because I was afraid I would be held responsible," Ms Patterson replied. Ms Patterson later agreed if she had told the truth to police she would have been a suspect. "You knew that if you told police the truth then you would be immediately suspected by police of being involved in a poisoning event?" Dr Rogers asked. "That's probably true, yes," Ms Patterson said. The trial continues.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
News Corp bosses boycott Origin as V'landys goes to war over drugs question
Senior executives and editors at News Corp boycotted the offer of NRL hospitality at last week's State of Origin match in Brisbane amid a war of words with Australian Rugby League Commission chairman Peter V'landys. V'landys expressed frustration and displeasure with the editors of The Daily Telegraph, The Courier Mail and Code Sports over the contents of a recently released series about rugby league player-agents titled 'The Deal Makers'. The series was based on a survey of 50 player-agents on some of the biggest issues in the game, including a question relating to the use of recreational drugs in rugby league. The agents were asked, 'Is drug use a problem with players?' with 62 per cent responding yes. That led to a series of heated phone calls between V'landys, and other NRL executives, and News Corp Australia executive chairman Michael Miller, Telegraph editor Ben English, sport executive editor Jason Scott and Queensland editor Chris Jones. Sources with knowledge of the situation – talking on the condition of anonymity due to the confidential nature of the phone calls – said V'landys took exception to the way the question was phrased, believing it incorrectly portrayed the NRL as having a widespread issue with drugs. The game has already had to deal with a number of recent headlines relating to players and drug issues – most notably involving Brayden Trindall, Josh Addo-Carr and Ezra Mam – and V'landys believed he needed to protect the reputation of the players. It resulted in several senior News Corp executives ignoring invitations to attend last week's Origin as guests of V'landys in the NRL's corporate suite at Suncorp Stadium.
