Jump to content

When is a hand off not a hand off?


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, dboy said:

No, the laws do not state that a foul act won't be punished if it's accidental.

A foul is a foul.

The thread question is "when is a hand-off, not a hand-off?"

When it's not done with an open hand is the answer.

I'm not sure what you want to get out of this thread. We have agreed that it is not legal contact and we have agreed that it was accidental.

Is it just that you want him punished for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


For information, here is the outcome of the disciplinary panel.

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Leeds v Leigh

Match Date:

2021-07-01

Incident:

Gouging in the 73rd minute

Decision:

No charge

Charge Detail:

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 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

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for reference, here is the outcome detail for the charge of dangerous contact against Liam Farrell in the Wigan vs. Warrington match on the 30th of June...

Player does not opponent into a dangerous position. Opponent places his head down and head becomes trapped in between the players legs. Pressure applied is totally accidental. 

So it would appear that 'accidental' is a legitimate reason for not charging a player with dangerous contact even though that contact was illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

For information, here is the outcome of the disciplinary panel.

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Leeds v Leigh

Match Date:

2021-07-01

Incident:

Gouging in the 73rd minute

Decision:

No charge

Charge Detail:

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 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

What is your point? There is NO evidence of gouging.

This is all completely correct, based on the match video that the panel see. There is no evidence of anything other than a fend, or in the absence of a fend, an attack to the face.

The panel don't get the stills which actually do show evidence of an illegal contact.

I don't want a punishment. The disciplinary panel has acted in completely good faith and followed the rules and the evidence in front of them.

It's the way it works.

Edited by dboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

And for reference, here is the outcome detail for the charge of dangerous contact against Liam Farrell in the Wigan vs. Warrington match on the 30th of June...

Player does not opponent into a dangerous position. Opponent places his head down and head becomes trapped in between the players legs. Pressure applied is totally accidental. 

So it would appear that 'accidental' is a legitimate reason for not charging a player with dangerous contact even though that contact was illegal.

The first line is the important one - DOES NOT put the player into a dangerous position.

There was no foul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dboy said:

The first line is the important one - DOES NOT put the player into a dangerous position.

There was no foul.

No, the first line shows that the pressure to the head (illegal contact) was accidental.

Your argument all the way through this thread is that all illegal contact is a foul so this pressure applied to the head must be a foul.

My argument is that some illegal contact is accidental... as this one is deemed to have been.

Edited by Dunbar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I'm not sure what you want to get out of this thread. We have agreed that it is not legal contact and we have agreed that it was accidental.

Is it just that you want him punished for it?

Don’t confuse him with logic as his entire argument goes up in a puff of smoke

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...