Dave T

I can see why people have landed on this being an accident, as per my first viewing I was a bit split, but my general viewpoint is that duty of care is with the tackler and when something looks odd, AND it injures a player, I think it's a tough defence. But, as I say, I can understand alternate viewpoints on this one. I think it's like the Leigh ones recently.

Aye, I'm simply making the point that if more money comes in from the top tv deals, more is paid to the lower divisions.

I don't want to get too technical we have different views of the tackle, which is fair enough, but I would add that you misrepresent what has been said here in your last para. They don't say the tackle was fair, they say initial contact was not unfair.

He seems a bit more upbeat than you tbh. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/adam-pearson-provides-hull-fc-9046149?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

I think that'd be great.

That is my description. For the type of tackle he was completing, there isn't really a reason your knee should be anywhere near the player. I've been casually watching some matches to try and find 3rd man tackles to compare, and firstky, it's quite difficult as many don't attempt the type of tackle he made, but there was one by Daryl Clarke after 4m30 in the game the other day, and his technique was very different. His legs go nowhere near the ball carrier. That's what I mean by unnatural, if you are throwing your shoulder at the ball carrier your knees should be clear really. It wasn't orthodox.

There is no reason to think they won't ban others. They are banning players left right and centre when there is no injury. Your last para. The answer is no. Accidents will happen - however if when making a tackle you have your leg in an unnatural position that makes it dangerous then you will be pulled for it. That's all that's happened here, there is nothing more profound or controversial than that. It's a dangerous tackle because of where the tackler put his knee. You think it was accidental, I can understand that view, others, including the MRP believe it was reckless and dangerous.

I'm not sure we can break the tackle down I to two parts, the legal part and the illegal part.

I'm not sure why you keep asking that question. It is answered quite clearly in the charge. I understand you not agreeing with it and feeling it was an accident, but the charge is very clear.

aye, to be fair though, we see all sorts of bans/penalties for things that wouldn't have been in previous years/decades.

I don't see why we wouldn't, unless you think there is some victimisation going on?

So this appears to be the main issue here: "Although SN’s initial point of contact was with WI’s thigh, his knee was in an unacceptable position as he was coming into contact and applying pressure to WI’s leg. In that way he was not in control of his actions. This was a reckless tackle and SN had failed to show an appropriate duty of care to his opponent in acting as he did."

I think the wording is vague enough to be able to be used, but I agree it isn't the best. I don't think we need to worry too much about your last line. As has been called out here, this is an unusual ban, it isn't a common offence that we see bans for. Plus there is enough in the wording that caters for accidental clashes. I do think there was enough in this one that looked odd tbh, I don;t agree that it is a tackle we see regularly.

I'm OK with it because Ashes tours have always had games against other nations (PNG and NZ). I think if we were going to persist with GB Lions then it is them who should be partaking in this tour.

I think at least one additional game in Oz to further acclimatise would be helpful.