-
Posts
17,821 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
171
Dunbar last won the day on April 18
Dunbar had the most liked content!
About Dunbar
Member Profile
-
Gender
Male
-
Location
Chiswick, West London
Dunbar's Achievements
24.2k
Reputation
-
Indeed. But I find the discussion interesting.
-
Fair enough. I can't remember injuring anyone but I remember being injured and none of them were fouls... but a couple of them certainly applied enough pressure to injure me. I never thought about whether they should have moderated their contact after in order to prevent the injury.
-
And do you think this incident falls into that description?
-
Tackle height law change confirmed
Dunbar replied to Leyther_Matt's topic in The General Rugby League Forum
I am 5 minutes into watching the first game of the Southern Conference season (Wests Warriors vs. London Chargers). I can report the game looks no different to last year and about a dozen tackles which look like the one's described as now outlawed in the video at the start of this thread have been let go. -
I agree with the last paragraph but I am not as comfortable as you seem to be with a catch all 'otherwise apply pressure'. Seems to me that describes every single tackle in Rugby League. I tell ya, it's the Rugby League deep state at work!
-
And just on this part - I am saying it was judged to be a foul, but as I think I have made clear, I don't agree with that judgement.
-
I will simplify my argument. The foul was applying pressure with his knee to the ankle of ISA. It is a charge which is a subset of the law "Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player." My view on the law above is that it was written to cover the deliberate twisting of a knee, ankle, arm of a player, a kind of cover all that isn't included in the chicken wing or other pressure fouls. It has been used here to charge a player for landing on top of another with his knee forcing pressure on the ankle. There was no other action that was illegal, just landing on a players ankle with his knee. My point is that any tackle where a player lands on another and causes injury can fall into this category. To put it even more simply - it is a foul because there was an injury (and the defender didn't prevent the injury), not a foul that caused an injury.
-
I think the point that everyone is making is that the tackle didn't break any of the laws of the game with the exception of "applying pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player." (the charge). I accept this is an illegal tackle but the point is that this category of illegal is open to a very wide interpretation. As the match review panel argued, "initial contact was not illegitimate but he argued that AN did not moderate his contact thereafter in order to prevent the injury." And the tribunal concluded that "initial contact was not unfair, and in the hip/thigh area, he then continued onwards into WI and in going then to the ground he came down on top of WI thereby making the heavy and objectionable contact with the back of WI’s ankle that caused the very serious injury." What people are concerned about is, couldn't any injury from a tackle result in a charge for a player that didn't moderate his contact to prevent the injury if the initial contact was fair? I know these things have to be taken on a case my case basis but I don't like the precedent.
-
The Worst Last Post Ever?
Dunbar replied to Sports Prophet's topic in The General Rugby League Forum
No, it is a 'the brass section has gone' post. -
Which game are you watching tonight?
Dunbar replied to Coggo's topic in The General Rugby League Forum
So, what's the viewing choice tonight. I like watching a game unfold over 80 minutes and don't enjoy jumping between channels so I will pick one and stick. I am thinking Leeds Giants will be the best game of the 3. -
"Try not to gasp when you read number 4"
-
In general, Rugby League suffered from being under represented in traditional media - newspapers (broadsheets in particular) and national TV and radio. Probably the biggest gripe of RL fans through the 90' and 00's was this lack of media attention. As a rule, I am not a fan of this 'citizen journalism' that big tech platforms (one in particular) is pushing as the future of news but I guess the democratisation of media is good for Rugby League as fans and clubs can be in charge of the narrative and the size and scope of the content. On balance, it could easily be described as a net positive for our sport.
-
Look on the bright side. I grew up watching Great Britain / England regularly losing to Australia and now we have gone almost 7 years without losing a game to them... an outstanding achievement.