Dunbar

Same here. I'm OK with it as a spectacle but it does put into question the RFL's ability to impose these strict new guidelines if they are essentially ignored from the outset.

2 penalties for high shots in the first half. But they were the shots that would have been penalised last year. No penalties for the upright tackles we saw in the video from the RFL... as I say, the game looks exactly the same as last year.

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?

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.

No, it is a 'the brass section has gone' post.

Why does it need more tech or personnel to change to the NRL process?

Isn't the NRL just a process difference? We ask the video ref to check tries if the on-field ref is not sure whereas in the NRL the on-field ref awards a try if they are leaning that way and the video ref reviews before the try is confirmed. It doesn't need any more tech or personnel.

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"