dboy

It's the refurbishment of the current Rollin Shack, in the corner of the ground.

You can't tackle someone's ankle with your knee. Also, you can't separate these fine points from the overall mechanics of Namo's tackle.

I didn't quote you because I replied directly to your post (though someone replied in between, before I submitted). 1. Accidental/deliberate does not matter in respect of whether it is a foul or not! An accidental foul is still a foul. It only matters in respect of the sanction. 2. When have we ever had this thing you call "consistency"? 3. I agree that that is likely it would have been missed without the injury (in our opinions), but the injury is relevant to the severity of the sanction.

Given that there are perhaps 600 tackles per game, and incidents like this are so rare, I'd say all of them. They certainly should be - it's how they're coached. You sound like Craig Lingard saying Namo wasn't thinking straight in the tackle because his head was knocked by his own player.

So which bit of "thereby making the heavy and objectionable contact with the back of WI’s ankle that caused the very serious injury." are you struggling with. At the end of the day you aren't arguing that I am wrong, you're saying the MRP are wrong. Clearly they are not. Someone said earlier "if there had been no injury, it wouldn't been noticed". I agree that's likely. Many say it's an accident. I agree that's likely. You, for example, have said "there'll be similar tackles all the time". We don't see players bringing knees through in front of their bodies in shoulder tackles, but I understand what you mean by seeing "similar" tackles. None of that changes the facts of the incident. Namo got it wrong with crappy technique. He got unlucky with the nature of the outcome.

"...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. " Are you going to base your argument on the difference between unnatural and unacceptable? Whatever the charge description was, it's not a natural tackling style to have your knee in contact, when you've bent down and made initial contact with your shoulder. The feet would be behind the upper body, driving the upper body into the contact. 5 year-olds are taught that.

He broke the LftG by dangerous contact on Isa's ankle joint. It says so in the charge and in the adjudication. The length of the ban is certainly affected by the injury, being at the top of the grading outcome. Have you read the adjudication? It clearly lays out the considerations of the matter - for and against.

I guess all the MRP were Wakey fans as well then? It's nothing to with it being a Cas player - I could not care less about which club he plays for!

Fact.

Agree with just about all of that; most of it is not in question. The offense really is clear though, however accidental, unfortunate, one-of-those things or not. My OPINION is that it wasn't deliberate and that he's unfortunate with the length of the ban (which is down to the nature of the injury). But the process of review, charge, mitigation, sanction has been followed. The irony for me is, I think Isa is a grub who's been getting away with it for years. Now there's an opinion!

And before you do, read the case adjudication...it confirms everything I have said about the incident, the process and the outcomes.

Tell me what I've said that isn't factual please.

Odd take. I haven't given an opinion, impassioned or otherwise, on any aspect of the incident. I have considered only the facts of how the disciplinary has worked. Only those who don't understand process have shown misguided "fury", as you put it. Don't ever liken me to Gledhill again - that's not nice.

If you didn't know what to look for, you'd describe it as innocuous. He went into Isa whilst he was in a vulnerable position, for some reason led in with a knee, which contacted Isa's ankle. It's poor technique, resulting in foul contact. It is absolutely the injury that's led to the severity of the ban.

The only people using the "blame" issue, are those trying to say it wasn't a foul (or "wasn't deliberate"). The nature of the incident is a foul. I haven't seen anyone say Namo did it on purpose. It's irrelevant to the issue of it being a foul or not. It IS relevant, as a mitigating factor, to the severity of the sentence.

If you want to selectively pick the words to support your incorrect assertions, that's fine, but pointless. You've quoted from the document introduction. The rest of the document goes on to explain what the offences are, what the grade charge boundaries are, what mitigations there may be and what the sanctions may be. It's an absolute fact that Namo committed a foul, contrary to the Laws of the Game.

Neither of which affects whether it is a foul tackle or not!!!" That only affects the grading of the charge and the severity of the ban. Why is this so hard for some people??!!

That's not what I said. If he had contacted the ankle with his shoulder, rather than his knee (so not "completely different" as you put it), no-one would think anything of the ban.

I can use the word "attack", because that's the wording of the RFLs Disciplinary Rule Book. The "intention" that you are fixated on does NOT mitigate whether a tackle was a foul or not. The intention of the tackler CAN be used as a mitigation of the severity of the penalty. It's a foul regardless of Namo's intent. You won't accept the facts, so we'll have to just disagree.

Mange tout Rodney, Mange tout!

Stop fixating on "purposefully" - it's irrelevant. That tackle "technique" was woeful and clearly dangerous. Accidental or not, the tackler attached the ankle joint of a vulnerable player - a foul - and has been penalised. The severity of that ban is another argument, but the nature of the injury is undoubtedly affecting that.

Put it this way - if he'd made that tackle to the ankle with his shoulder (to a stationary, vulnerable player), you'd have absolutely no complaints of it being called a cannonball tackle, and expect a big ban.

Intention is irrelevant to it being foul play and does not excuse the action.

Surely Cas haven't done their homework here, or we are all looking at the incident incorrectly?? The charge (15.1b), is specific to attacks to the head and neck. The offence/ban is nothing to do with the leg injury??

Yes, 15.1 is the charge. I'm quoting the sentencing guidelines there - it's a separate document. Microsoft Word - OnFieldCompliance_Procedures_Sentencing_Guidelines_2023.docx (rugby-league.com) It is odd if they are using the "kicks" sentencing as F grade is specifically for attacks to the head, which this clearly isn't.