dboy

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.

I am surprised that Cas couldn't get it down to an E Grade though...I reckon they will appeal. I certainly didn't see an aggressive and violent manner to the challenge.

We can look forward to the adjudication to clear it all up... 6.4. Adjudications The Tribunal’s adjudications will: - Be published in full; - Include all aggravating and/or mitigating factors taken into consideration; - Give clear and full reasons for the decision; - Summarise the cases of the Compliance Manager and Player respectively; - Confirm the sanction (if any) handed down including all aggravating and/or mitigating factors taken into consideration; - Explain any deviation from the On Field Sentencing Guidelines; - Give clear and full reasons for the decision.

So you mean if he'd made that same tackle, still contacting the ankle, but NOT resulting in any kind of injury or hindrance to Isa...it's still a foul. I doubt it would have been picked up by the ref, but possibly still by the MRP though. In that scenario (no injurious outcome), it wouldn't have been Grade F though would it - slap on the wrist/warning/1 match/just a fine? Who knows. The charge was "Dangerous Contact - 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." Which part of that charge is incorrect?

Just make sure you aren't comparing apples with pears...look for the factors. Player runs in at a stationary, vulnerable ball carrier and leads into contact with his knee, not his upper body/shoulder. He contacts a joint directly, with force, putting it in an unnatural position, causing serious injury. Those are the factors that = a charge and lengthy ban.

If that tackle occurred, but Isa got up and played on...where is the foul???

I really should have put "excuse", rather than "mitigation".

Of course accidents happen, but it's not an excuse. I'm certain the Cas representatives made a full mitigation plea, including "accident" and "no intent". Namo's legs shouldn't have been anywhere near contact though, though the length of the ban is clearly linked to the injury outcome.

But then you'd be wrong to think that. It includes direct contact.

You mean in a scenario where Namo doesn't make contact with Isa's ankle and break it? No, because it wouldn't have a foul.

6.3.1.4. Injury caused - If the Misconduct has caused injury to an opponent, this may result in a higher penalty than if no injury had occurred. - The Operational Rules Tribunal may consider the length of time an injured opponent is likely to be out of the game when passing sentence.

I don't think the charge is due to the injury (it's due to the offence), but it does look like the length of the ban IS. That is problematic.

Eh? Using his knee in contact to apply pressure against Isa's ankle, forcing it in an unnatural plane, has clearly caused risk and a serious injury outcome. The tackler had no right having his legs anywhere near contact with Isa, a virtually stationary target. I wouldn't argue that he deliberately meant to cause the damage, but being "accidental", is in no way a mitigation for getting your tackle contact right.

Ticket revenue is massively up this year, even with the deal on tickets. Long way to go through the season, but the signs are good. I have been told that Wakey aren't doing the LED boards this year, as the points won't make enough of a difference this year. I have a sneaky feeling that Wakey (and possibly Cas too), are playing down their potential scores and may be aiming for an A grade on the quiet. Rumours of Wakey doing the West Stand next season, which could be a master stroke = sell repeat/new season tickets on the back of a successful season, coupled with large away support from SL clubs redevelop the WT, thus legitimately reducing the capacity results in an increased score for stadium utilisation

I've had a look at images of the stand and their boards are that high as they are affixed to the railings, and thus dictated by their height. Wakey's are the same in front of the North Stand. I've also looked at the RFL Operations Book - no minimum height is specified, so, as long as the WMDC H&S is happy, they could reduce them. If they don't, as pointed out, the first few rows of seating are obsolete.

I'm not sure the boarding heights can be lowered - they are there for a reason, which is as relevant to the playing area, as it is the spectator area.