EagleEyePie

We've seen lots of seemingly innocuous incidents picked up by the disciplinary panel so I think it would. Whether it would receive a ban I don't know as I don't know how much causing an injury affects the grading and range of suspension.

That's always been the case. Injury is an aggravating factor. It's no different to if you punched someone in the face and they sustained no injury vs punching someone in the face and them suffering a broken jaw. The latter is a more serious offence even if the action in the first scenario is the same as in the second.

I agree with the last sentence in the sense that I don't think there's an attempt to do that, but I think it's pretty clear he's applied pressure with his knee in making that tackle. It's a bit reckless and out of control for his knee to be contacting the defender like that.

I think the ban is for the knee going into the lower leg/ankle. The contact area with his shoulder is absolutely fine, but he's coming in 3rd man and pretty much knee sliding into contact. It's hard to argue there's any malice in that, but it's also hard to argue it isn't dangerous contact and very clumsy tackle technique. Your lower body shouldn't be clattering into the ball carriers legs when making a tackle.

I'm not really expecting the blowout score that others seem to be. It's worth pointing out we made really hard work of beating Sheffield a couple of weeks ago and haven't exactly been setting Super League on fire with our performances. I think the Saints game showed we can raise our game to but I'm not sure it's a turning point in terms of our form. If Leigh play with enough enthusiasm and keep their errors low there's no reason why they can't turn us over.

Byrne's was shoulder to head, but it doesn't matter whether it's shoulder or head contact this year unless there's mitigation, they are both the same offence. Byrne made contact with his shoulder because Percival dipped slightly (but not enough to mitigate) and he didn't bend his back going into contact. Lees made contact with his head when Thompson was fully upright and also didn't bend his back.

Dupree was a lucky boy that's for sure. He may have hit the chest first but the intent was clearly there. It seemed like it was a reaction to Lees' previous tackle on Thompson. I'm guessing that one is going to see him get the same punishment that Byrne will for the Percival tackle, as it was head on head contact with no attempt to bend the back or wrap the arm. That's not an excuse for Dupree, I think it pretty much confirms what he was intending to do. The elbow was clearly promoted recklessly. Secondary contact is no longer enough mitigation for tackles that impact the head so I'd assume it's not much mitigation for leading with the forearm/elbow either. Not sure how the sanctions work these days though as all the focus on head contact seems to have been about the tackler rather than the ball carrier. I think this might be the first case of a ball carrier being penalised for head contact since the new rules came in?

I'm struggling to see why anyone would really invest any time (let alone money) into something like that. Where is the fun in a game that is essentially whoever spends ridiculous amounts of money on something ultimately worthless wins. The best thing about Fantasy Premier League is it's a level playing field which makes it competitive. Yes, a lot of people drop out early on if they fall behind but you can also find ways around that. FPL is obviously the benchmark and I don't see how it's so difficult to come up with something similar for rugby league. A little bit more effort made on previous iterations would go a long way. This seems as pointless as rugby league NFT's and a shameless money grab.

I noticed him go down after a tackle and he looked to be struggling. He's been impressive in the two pre-season games so that's a blow. We get Nsemba back at the end of this month if all goes to plan but it means we definitely need to wrap Farrell and Isa in cotton wool until the Penrith game as they are our only remaining back row forwards. Chan's performance at second row against Wakefield was so poor I wouldn't have confidence in him as backup.

Hull looked the better team for about 20 minutes. Piled on the pressure with Pele and Ese'ese causing problems but Wigan defended the line very well, though you'd probably be looking for more from your halfbacks in that situation. Wigan brought Leeming on and the game completely changed. We had more time with the ball and started putting Hull under pressure. Harry Smith was outstanding in attack and defence. Mago, Hill, Dupree and Chan were strong down the middle. In the absence of our two first choice wingers Eckersley and Douglas did well. Obviously the problem for Hull FC was their defence, but I also thought the pairing of Hoy and Brown looked all legs and no hands. There were glimpses of threat when they ran the ball but they had no controlling playmaker in the way Smith was for Wigan.

To be fair to Barrie and Terry, I don't think they got their gig at Sky because of their knowledge of the game and insight. Didn't their break at Sky come through 'Boots n'all' or whatever it was called? Unless I'm misremembering (I was quite young at the time) they used to do some skits on that show and people seemed to find them entertaining and the 'double act' was born. However, that was a long time ago now. I don't think their shtick has lasted and neither of them are particularly good when summarising on their own. Barrie is the better of the two but I don't think either are among the strongest pundits. Jay Rayner is right though, if you're an expert who can't impart their knowledge very well there's no point getting into punditry. To use an example from football, Micah Richards and Roy Keane are popular pundits, especially when together, but it's not their in-depth analysis that stands out, it's that they seem naturally entertaining as personalities. I think that's the sort of thing that Sky were going for when they brought in Baz'n'Tez.

It became a bit farcical once the floodlights started cutting out but I was impressed with what I saw from Wakefield. It was very much a game between a team that looked up to speed and one that didn't. There was a period where Wigan just couldn't stop conceding penalties and compounded it with bad errors. Wakefield were very fluid moving the ball across the field and Wigan got caught out a bit with our back rowers of Walters and Chan not really being able to follow the play. The commentators on Wigan TV had been saying as soon as the floodlights started cutting out that it could be dangerous if it happened when players were going into contact and that's what happened to prompt Chris Kendall to finally call the game off.

Your post seems to be suggesting that concussions aren't a problem that needs addressing but micro sub-concussions are. They are both issues. Just because concussion isn't believed to be the main driver of CTE doesn't mean it isn't a serious issue with serious consequences. Players careers are literally ended by repeated concussions and that's something the sport should be trying to avoid. CTE isn't the only adverse health risk that's an issue. While sub-concussion events might not be able to be measured by iMG's the evidence suggests sub-concussive head impacts cause an increase in risk of CTE so why would reducing all head impacts not make a difference? Also, reducing sub-concussive impacts is also covered by the game time limits being implemented. The cumulative effect of hits (not just concussions) is the main drive behind that rule change. So the aim is to make the game safer on numerous fronts.

This thread is very informative. It's a shame that Twitter (no, I'll never call it 'X') isn't the best for presenting this information and it would be useful if it could be expanded into an article to properly explain these points without a character limit. Also doesn't gloss over the fact that, while the highest instance of concussion is obviously ball carriers being tackled around the head, the second biggest risk is defenders tackling around the hip area, and that low tackles carry twice the concussion risk of tackling between shoulder and abdomen.

If there's a slight concern it's the fact that the squad is very prop heavy. We're not exactly blessed with depth anywhere else except perhaps hooker. Injuries in the backs or at second row could test us.