When is a hand off not a hand off?

[sweaty craiq]

 

[M j M]

I believe the player doing the handing off should have at least some duty of care to the opponent so there could be a case to answer.

On the other hand one still frame isn't conclusive evidence of wrongdoing and the video doesn't show much evidence of anything amiss, as Holroyd just swatted Brierley away.

I'm interested why the match review panel didn't comment on it; perhaps nothing came in from the referee or from Leigh and as the video itself shows nothing they didn't have anything to even suggest there was an issue.

In a televised game we'd have more to go at I think.

[RigbyLuger]

Show me a full video and not a still image.

[dkw]

Yeah that one image is definitely what should be used to decide if he meant to do that damage......disgusting manipulation.

[sweaty craiq]

23 minutes ago, dkw said:

Yeah that one image is definitely what should be used to decide if he meant to do that damage......disgusting manipulation.

I dont think he meant to do any damage. I think its very rare any player sets out to damage another player in most contact situations these days. 

[Davo5]

Looks like a handoff to me.

[Chris22]

I've pointed it out before but I've always found it strange that a certain type of contact is deemed dangerous when an defender does it but when an attacker does it, then it's fine.

Obviously not suggesting there were as any intent in this incident, it would be a shock if it was. More to the point, let's hope Brierley makes a speedy recovery.

[dkw]

1 hour ago, sweaty craiq said:

I dont think he meant to do any damage. I think its very rare any player sets out to damage another player in most contact situations these days. 

So what's the point of this thread then?

[Derwent]

21 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Looks like a handoff to me.

It really doesn’t. Laws of the game say a hand off must be with an open palm, any contact with clenched fingers or the heel of the hand is foul play.

[fighting irish]

2 minutes ago, Derwent said:

It really doesn’t. Laws of the game say a hand off must be with an open palm, any contact with clenched fingers or the heel of the hand is foul play.

What injuries were sustained?

[Derwent]

1 minute ago, fighting irish said:

What injuries were sustained?

I think Brierley had to have emergency eye surgery, but I’m not sure what your point is.

[M j M]

28 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

let's hope Holroyd makes a speedy recovery.

Yes, his fingernails may have some bloody goo under them that needs attending to.

[JonM]

RFL Disciplinary Panel had this to say in justification of "No Further Action" on the charge of gouging.

"The Player has the ball and is trying to evade the opponent to try and score. Player goes to fend the opponent which he has a right to do. There is no unnatural or aggressive movement of the player with his hand towards the opponent and the contact is fleeting. There is no evidence of any attack to the face of the opponent."

[LeytherRob]

20 minutes ago, dkw said:

So what's the point of this thread then?

Intent isn't the only thing punished by the disciplinary committee. There is a whole spectrum between "He intentionally gouged his eyes" and "it's a completely legal hand off". 

[ELBOWSEYE]

I think even off one image and the injuries that occurred you can see that it is an illegal play whether accidental or otherwise. With a hand-off there is always a risk the defenders could suffer injury be that a broken nose or in the mouth area but this player was not using an open hand at least so of the time. 

[Live after death]

If this ended up as a disciplinary issue or a ban of any kind, then we may has well just go to touch and pass.  Look at it in real time its an unfortunate accident and an occupational hazard nothing more. If anyone can not see that it’s nothing more than unfortunate, then they are just on an agenda or probably RL is not the sport for you. Hopefully Brierly recovers soon. 

[Live after death]

In real time, its a very glancing hand of, really nothing to see.

https://fb.watch/v/56XsU1-Qm/

[Davo5]

41 minutes ago, Derwent said:

It really doesn’t. Laws of the game say a hand off must be with an open palm, any contact with clenched fingers or the heel of the hand is foul play.

And you can tell all that off 1 still photo

[Derwent]

Just now, Davo5 said:

And you can tell all that off 1 still photo

Well I can see contact with clenched fingers on that 1 still photo. Whether it’s intentional or not, under the laws of the game that is not allowed.

[Davo5]

1 minute ago, Derwent said:

Well I can see contact with clenched fingers on that 1 still photo. Whether it’s intentional or not, under the laws of the game that is not allowed.

Obviously the powers that be felt otherwise after looking at more than a single still photo.

[RigbyLuger]

10 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

And you can tell all that off 1 still photo

Disciplinary will last forever as they examine every match frame by frame from every angle!

[DavidM]

Just make physical contact illegal and we won’t have all this

[Marauder]

3 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

Show me a full video and not a still image.

Correct, how do you get time to decided to gauge someone on purpose when the time you have to actually execute the hand off is very small.

[Marauder]

17 minutes ago, Derwent said:

Well I can see contact with clenched fingers on that 1 still photo. Whether it’s intentional or not, under the laws of the game that is not allowed.

My mate broke and ripped his thumb off whilst handing someone off, it got caught in the would be tacklers shoulder pads, who fault was that.

[dboy]

3 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

Show me a full video and not a still image.

A video is a series of still images, run consecutively, to create the illusion of movement.

Every one of those images is a single, factual representation of what has happened.

The still image shared shows an illegal contact.

A fend (hand-off), is done with an open hand.