Dave T

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.

When we had better TV deals, the lower leagues got more money iirc.

Are you arguing with yourself John?

I'd like to see a schedule with these games in advance of the Ashes. In terms of who, I think the key point is to make the fixtures as commercially viable as possible. I'm not a fan of made up teams being pulled together so ideally teams with some meaning, we do have a few international teams there so ideally the odd Test match in advance would be good. In terms of losing warm up games, it's not a big issue imo. In 1988 we lost 3 games in Oz and in 1992 we lost against Parramatta. Interesting to note that we started both of those tours in PNG, so maybe that is an option, it feels like PNG have earned a game, particularly after beating GB last time they played.

I do get it, I was very critical of Steve Price at Wire despite us finishing 3rd, beating Saints at Wembley and making other finals. I've consistently banged the drum for entertaining RL. This is meant to be entertaining and exciting, I couldn't care less for coaches giving an identikot interview about playing the percentages and so on. It's why for his faults I will always celebrate the likes of Dufty at Wire.

Hull are a weird example. People are making out they are bad now because they have no risk of relegation. Yet they've been bad for years when relegation was in place. They really aren't doing too much differently in 2024 than they have for the last few years.

I do think though clubs are allowed to make rubbish rugby decisions, that's part of the fun. My team have under-performed over the last couple of years, and Leeds aren't where they maybe should be. But these are the clubs that are strong off the field - playing in good grounds, doing well financially, getting sponsors, big crowds. The fact that Hull have been hovering around 8th for the last decade is for them to be peed off with, but they are still delivering 5 figure crowds, including one of the biggest games of every year. I think it's OK that a strong club is getting it wrong on the field, that's the interesting sport bit.

Your third line is an interesting one, and I do get where you are coming from, but I think that is where the word 'unnecessary' does a lot of heavy lifting, and is clearly open to interpretation. On watching it, it does make me uncomfortable, I think it is a poor tackle - we see loads of these tackles where a players knees are not involved, which is the first thing I'd consider (so it wasn't an inevitable accident). On the disciplinary, we do see plenty of injuries that don't lead to a ban, and we see plenty of third man in tackles that don't lead to a ban, so I'm not too uncomfortable with it tbh.

does the sport look any different, or is it just ignored?

If it's a freak accident, there would be no charge - but the onus is always on the player. Players coming in 3rd man to hit around the hip don't normally have their knees involved. He got it wrong - that isn't on anyone else.

On your first line - I don't agree - the word unnecessary is important here - as per my first viewing, I think the tackler's body was in an unusual position, we see many third man in tackles that don't involve your knee being part of that tackle. On your second line - I'm not sure why you think it is impossible to do that intentionally or recklessly? The fact that these tackles are not common suggests it is possible to not do it - I don't think because he did do it it is accidental.