johnh1 Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Out for 3 months after a terrible cannon ball tackle by Danny Brough. When Brett Ferres received a similar injury after Rangi Chase's tackle last year, Paul Anderson wanted Chase banned for as long as Ferres was out injured. In fact Ferres was back playing before Chase's ban had expired. I wonder if Paul Anderson will ban Danny Brough until Caton-Brown is back playing as the RFL have not had the guts to ban him themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Browny Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Brough is a bit sad so it is ok. I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hvy wg Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Leg injury is terrible for a back. If Caton-Brown loses his paces, his career is over.Brough should get a lenghty ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Frightful Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Once he signs for Hull FC the RFL will ban him for eternity. Or is that Hull KR? Hull FC....The Sons of God... (Well, we are about to be crucified on Good Friday) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red robin Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Good job the tacklers name isn't John Boudebza! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 The "No case to answer" result was always going to bring out a cry of disbelief. And it can't help but put the Rangi Chase verdict from last season back in the limelight! And wasn't the John Boudebza one determind by the injury rather than the tackle? If the judiciary wanted to place themselves in the frame for inconsistency they couldn't have done a better job! 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red John Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 It can't have been a dangerous tackle because Paul Anderson would have called it. As we saw last year, he's mustard on that kind of thing. What the incident does do, of course, is give us a clear example of what a perfectly legitimate tackle looks like. Here it is, should you wish to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogledd Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I home Mason gets well soon and back to full fitness. He scored a great end-of-game try for North Wales at Newcastle Thunder. Best wishes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh1 Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 It looks worse every time I watch it. Disgraceful. Surely there is something that can be done to get Brough banned for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Doesn't he hit above the knee and with the bend of the joint all things that will go in brough's favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Doesn't he hit above the knee and with the bend of the joint all things that will go in brough's favour. Didn't John Boudebza do exactly that too? And also shouldn't we be very worried for players if legitimate tackles are doing as much harm as illegal ones? I looked over the Chase, Boudebza and this one and a couple of other recent efforts and I'm at a loss to see truly significant distance between any of them! 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Didn't John Boudebza do exactly that too? And also shouldn't we be very worried for players if legitimate tackles are doing as much harm as illegal ones? I looked over the Chase, Boudebza and this one and a couple of other recent efforts and I'm at a loss to see truly significant distance between any of them! The height seems ok on the boudeza one but he goes in from the side against the joint. Brough goes in with more aggression and there's possibly a case to answer for that. These tackles aren't all the same though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 The height seems ok on the boudeza one but he goes in from the side against the joint. Brough goes in with more aggression and there's possibly a case to answer for that. These tackles aren't all the same though. I know they're not the same and I think that's more of a problem than if they were! The nit picking between them as tackles plus evidence from later news on the injury caused varies. If we banned this type of tackle altogether not only would it protect players more effectively but we wouldn't have to discuss grey area let off for some and lengthy bans for others. The judiciary would look more consistent and fans feel less aggrieved by the niceties of good some but not others. Yes I know fans would only find something else to moan about but at least that would be one less "controversial" aspect of the game. 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevereed100 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Fully agree. John Boudebeza deserves an apology from the RFL, something very odd about the motives behind the decision and lack of consistency since. An inexperienced French player representing a lesser team....easy target and then increase ban to 4 games...just stinks. Perhaps the Cas coach can man up and apologise for his "outrage"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Fully agree. John Boudebeza deserves an apology from the RFL, something very odd about the motives behind the decision and lack of consistency since. An inexperienced French player representing a lesser team....easy target and then increase ban to 4 games...just stinks. Perhaps the Cas coach can man up and apologise for his "outrage"! There was a suggestion in an email afrom Twitter that because Leeds were interested in Brough that may have influenced the decision and this is what this kind of thing will always lead to. 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Willow Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Although all players hit the knee at the same height I would say the difference between the Brough and Chase tackles is the angle. Chase came in from the side and hit the knee where as Brough appears to hit from behind and therefore tackles in the same direction as the knee would bend. I have concerns about players hitting a standing leg when the tackle is already made or hitting a kicker's standing leg. In the Brough case there is no need to hit the player with such force and has probably caused the injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Angle, height, knee, players leg, after the tackle is complete? Only one consistent in all this, player injury. 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Angle, height, knee, players leg, after the tackle is complete? Only one consistent in all this, player injury. Let's say you completely ban this tackle we'd still be having this discussion because there will be differences in severity. You'll still get player A got six games and player B got two. In the same way you do with shoulder charges or high tackles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Let's say you completely ban this tackle we'd still be having this discussion because there will be differences in severity. You'll still get player A got six games and player B got two. In the same way you do with shoulder charges or high tackles. The inconsistency of the judiciary will always come into view when we have record so far, Grade A-Z etc taken into account. If it's banned and the punishment is 8 matches how many times do you think we'll see it in season? 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 The inconsistency of the judiciary will always come into view when we have record so far, Grade A-Z etc taken into account. If it's banned and the punishment is 8 matches how many times do you think we'll see it in season? Lots of things are "banned" but they are still judged on their severity and then get a punishment to suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.