Dave T

"Otherwise apply pressure..." is a catch-all that is sensible to include in things like this to avoid being overly-prescriptive. I'm not sure there is an issue in this charge being used as it was. It really is simple. You don't think it was a foul, I do. That's perfectly fine and a valid view, but the rest of this is noise.

I struggle to follow this. You say the tackle doesn't break any laws and then call it illegal. We already discussed the irrelevance of initial contact being legal. He wasn't charged for the initial contact.

It'd likely get 10-12k in Leeds. And then we'd move to 2 games, 10k in Leeds and 7k in Wire or Saints. Wed scrap it.

On TV that Leeds v Hudds crowd didn't look as big as the game against Wire a couple of weeks ago.

You are ignoring all the evidence that shows players getting injured and the tackler not being punished. There is nothing more to this than it being deemed illegal and him being punished for it.

It is an illegal tackle, it just wasn't picked up live.

I think it's quite sad, but I don't think it matters, and that's probably an outcome of us always doing things half hearted. We've played ashes before as England but with Welsh players and so on. We've had GB controversy with Ireland. I think people overstate the case for both GB Lions or England depending on their preference. I don't think it particularly matters tbh. Even in those days people remember so fondly in the late 80s and early 90s the GB team was generally made of blokes from Yorkshire and "Lancashire" with the odd exception like Phil Ford, JD, Hugh Waddell, Jon Devereux, Alan Tait etc. I miss the RU converts a lot, particularly The Welsh players, but they were not prominent in the history of GB RL even when we were signing loads of them.

Not really. I've been to Lancs v Yorks before, I'd happily go again, but I think it's a terrible idea because it'd fail again just like it has previously. Literally nothibg has changed to male this a success this time.

This sounds great. Have we ever done anything like this before?

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.