Dunbar

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"

In general, Rugby League suffered from being under represented in traditional media - newspapers (broadsheets in particular) and national TV and radio. Probably the biggest gripe of RL fans through the 90' and 00's was this lack of media attention. As a rule, I am not a fan of this 'citizen journalism' that big tech platforms (one in particular) is pushing as the future of news but I guess the democratisation of media is good for Rugby League as fans and clubs can be in charge of the narrative and the size and scope of the content. On balance, it could easily be described as a net positive for our sport.

Look on the bright side. I grew up watching Great Britain / England regularly losing to Australia and now we have gone almost 7 years without losing a game to them... an outstanding achievement.

Just when we were putting the conversation to bed, you go and light the blue touch paper.

I kind of land in the middle of these two. The France and Greece games were not an issue, we were always going to win. We had to play well 3 times in that comp (it would have been 4 if we had got to the final). The first game we had to play well to top the group and get the tournament off to a flier. We exceeded expectations and were very good (even if Samoa were poor). Against PNG we easily saw off a potentially tricky opponent so we were good. In the semi we didn't execute and just didn't play with the passion that the occasion warranted. So... Very good Good Poor What's the average there!

Yes, fair enough - initial contact was fair is what I should have said. The 'subsequently' I mentioned is the part that was deemed unfair. But, as you said before, it was all one tackle so I did misrepresent that.

Anyway, I think we have pretty much said all we can on this one. Thanks to @Dave T and @dboy for an interesting and good natured discussion.

This is an interesting point. And when we look at high shots, that is certainly the case... ad high shot is a foul even if it is accidental. But here, we are talking about pressure on a player during a tackle. I think that situation can absolutely be accidental as the contact with a players ankle is not in itself a foul (especially as there is no twisting motion involved). There will be many tackles where a players ankle has pressure applied to it... but not all are fouls.

I assume this was directed at me even though I wasn't quoted. I have said all along that I accept the judgment on the panel (and now the tribunal). I have simply pointed out and maintain a few important points (in my eyes anyway). 1. They considered it reckless and so do you. I considered it accidental, an important difference. The tribunal came to a decision and i respect that decision but I am allowed to disagree with it. 2. What the tribunal is saying In their decision is that the initial tackle was fair but he then made heavy and objectionable contact with the tackled player. And this was not with an arm or hand but a knee. If landing on a player with the knee after a tackle is now a foul then will we see this consistently punished. 3. If there was no injury, there was absolutely no way that we would have seen or mentioned that tackle ever again. So it is the injury that has led to the ban.

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!