Dunbar

Interestingly, in the minutes of the meeting, the 'unacceptable' position of the knee is only mentioned by the representative of the Match Review Panel (the prosecution in effect). The tribunal simply state in their ruling that AN’s 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. So, they are not saying his leg was in an unacceptable (or unnatural) position, simply that he recklessly came down on Isa's ankle. In some ways this makes the whole discussion easier as they say he could of and should of avoided landing on Isa's ankle causing the damage. But in other ways it complicates matters as the ruling is that the tackle was fair but he subsequently landed on Isa and caused pressure. I mean how many tackles in Rugby League does that describe!

Sorry, are you arguing that there is no difference between unnatural and unacceptable? A bit rich from someone who has asked me whether "I have read the adjudication? It clearly lays out the considerations of the matter"... yet now seems to want to defend the use of a word that wasn't included in any part of the adjudication.

There was nothing in the charge or the decision of the panel that stated that his leg was in an unnatural position.

Yes, I have read it several times. And they considered the position of Namo's knee to be unacceptable while executing the tackle and therefore recklessly causing the injury to Isa. My point, which I have made several times, is whether we will see any referrals and bans for any other player having his knee in the position that Namo had but doesn’t either 1) result in the contact with the ankle of the tackled player or 2) contacts the tackled players ankle but does not cause injury. If neither of these cases come about and a player’s knee makes contact the ankle of a player that he tackles and there is no penalty, charge or ban, then Namo has been banned for the injury. My question to you is – if a tackler contacts a players ankle with his knee moving forward while executing an otherwise legal tackle, is that going to be called a foul?

Your not making any friends on here with that statement!

I guess. But I feel for players (forwards in particular, but I am bias) that play one of the fastest and hardest physical sports in the world for 80 minutes with players charging into each other and enduring tackles that have the force of a car crash... and then get banned for having their knee in an unacceptable position when making an otherwise legitimate tackle.

Reading through the minutes, the ‘prosecution’ said that the tackle was akin to a 'drop tackle' although it wasn't a drop tackle and that Namo made legal initial contact but then did not moderate his contact thereafter in order to prevent the injury and that his knee was in an unacceptable position. He has been banned for applying the pressure with his knee to Isa’s ankle and essentially not stopping himself from applying pressure to the ankle with his knee which was in an ‘unacceptable position’ while he was making what was otherwise a legitimate tackle. But once again, I go back to the first principle – what law of the game has Namo broken with this tackle? In essence, he has been banned for injuring Isa, not for breaking the laws of the game. That is a really strange position for our game to be in.

Not at all, just that I am in my 5th decade of watching Rugby League and I didn't know that a knee being in an unacceptable position was a foul.

Come on, not once in a generation... that's only 20 or 30 years... once in a lifetime!

Will we see other players penalised and banned for their knee's being in an unacceptable position I wonder.

It's the rules of the Internet. It's not your opinion if you give your opinion and then state it is an 'absolute fact' afterwards. Your opinions magically turn into facts.

I'm not sure he would get a run in the centre or wing unless the Knights had a pretty deep injury crisis. If Ponga has a spell on the sidelines, you would expect Pryce to be in the mix for back up #1 but I think his chance will come when (if!) Adam O'Brien finally recognises that Cogger and Hastings are too similar and Gamble is bobbins and he finally puts Pryce at 6 next to either Cogger or Hastings as a game management 7.

Manu is one of many good players in the NRL but not even close to a once in a lifetime player. In fact, I am watching the Roosters Storm game now (or working, depending on who is asking) and Manu is just one of many good players in this game.

Pryce has been named in the Knights NSW Cup side again this week so he looks OK.

If talents like Jonathan Davies , Ellery Hanley, Darren Lockyer and Joey Manu only come around once in a lifetime and I have seen them all play. I have to ask, and be honest, am I immortal... am I Highlander?