This week's disciplinary.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, DavidM said:

Just my view , i think that’s one of the  great tackles . Tremendous shot 

It is,  as long as his shoulder hasn't made contact with the players face. 

We can't ignore that because it looked good. 

[Chris22]

This is what I think will happen.

Knowles will get banned for two matches. Saints will appeal (because there's nothing to lose in doing so). It will not be deemed frivolous, which of course will have nothing to do with the fact that 3+ matches will see him miss a World Cup match. This will highlight the ridiculous nature of club bans carrying to internationals.

Welsby will get nothing.

Fans will be in uproar regardless of what happens. The Saints appeal of Knowles' ban will especially boil blood.

 

[Moove]

No arguments from me if Knowles picks up a ban. I don't think it will be a long one (2-3 matches maybe - the sin bin may result in the lower end) but it was a reckless action and could have caused injury. The game is tough enough without things like that.

I expect Welsby will get sent for review initially but NFA - which will no doubt send Twitter and Bedfordshire Bronco into meltdown. It was a great defensive read and while it was a heavy aggressive tackle he was in control, crouched and wrapped his arms. Unless there is clear evidence somewhere of his shoulder making initial contact with the head (which I've yet to be shown in any of the TV replays) then I'm struggling to see what's got people so worked up - other than the usual Just Browny style "it's Saints, ban them" primary school level nonsense.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Chris22 said:

Fans will be in uproar regardless of what happens. The Saints appeal of Knowles' ban will especially boil blood.

Even moreso with Woolfe saying there was nothing wrong with it, I doubt he would have been of the same opinion if it had happened to obe of his player's.

[DavidM]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

It is,  as long as his shoulder hasn't made contact with the players face. 

We can't ignore that because it looked good. 

I just don’t like the extreme analysis we get now after the event to find something or to explain an injury . Noone saw anything wrong with that , but im sure if you look hard enough frame by frame they can find something . That was just to me a tremendous tackle . Its a tough high speed impact game . That was all of them to perfection imo 

[Dave T]

Because my screen grabs were so popular on the match thread (and I have finally worked out how to resize to upload here)  I have another couple. 

I think Welsby has a couple of problems with his tackle. The first image shows that his tackling shoulder is raised above his own head and despite crouching his own back which is positive for him,  he does raise his tackling arm. 

The 2nd pic shows the point of contact,  and whilst it is blurry,  suggests it is in the face. 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I just don’t like the extreme analysis we get now after the event to find something or to explain an injury . Noone saw anything wrong with that , but im sure if you look hard enough frame by frame they can find something . That was just to me a tremendous tackle . Its a tough high speed impact game . That was all of them to perfection imo 

That is quite a strange position though.  Because something is fast and we missed it on first viewing doesn't mean it should be ignored. 

A slick pickpocket doesn't get free rein. 

[FearTheVee]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Yeah I'm not 100% sure on the contact.  Whether it would be classified as Grade A,  I don't know,  because if we want to compare to Martin's it is much more reckless and forceful and with a shoulder. Point of contact is the crucial factor here. 

Why would we compare it to a tackle where it was obvious contact was to the face with an arm above the shoulder?

FWIW I wouldn’t have banned Martin but at least you could clearly say it was a high tackle and not accidental head contact.

At the end of the day of Welsby did that to Lattrell Mitchel everyone on here would be saying what a brilliant tackle it was.

[Dave T]

Just now, FearTheVee said:

Why would we compare it to a tackle where it was obvious contact was to the face with an arm above the shoulder?

FWIW I wouldn’t have banned Martin but at least you could clearly say it was a high tackle and not accidental head contact.

At the end of the day of Welsby did that to Lattrell Mitchel everyone on here would be saying what a brilliant tackle it was.

I mean,  it's clear cut.  If it's high,  he has a case to answer,  if it's not,  it's all good. 

I'm not sure why some people are so against pulling foul play. 

[FearTheVee]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Because my screen grabs were so popular on the match thread (and I have finally worked out how to resize to upload here)  I have another couple. 

I think Welsby has a couple of problems with his tackle. The first image shows that his tackling shoulder is raised above his own head and despite crouching his own back which is positive for him,  he does raise his tackling arm. 

The 2nd pic shows the point of contact,  and whilst it is blurry,  suggests it is in the face. 

What that shows to me is a player bending his back, wrapping his arms and putting in a tackle that would be about sternum height if the ball carrier doesn’t crouch down.

Just out of interest is still point of contact? Or post-contact.

[FearTheVee]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I mean,  it's clear cut.  If it's high,  he has a case to answer,  if it's not,  it's all good. 

I'm not sure why some people are so against pulling foul play. 

I’m not against pulling foul play, it just wasn’t foul play.

No doubt Knowles’s foul play will get him a ban.

[Dave T]

Just now, FearTheVee said:

What that shows to me is a player bending his back, wrapping his arms and putting in a tackle that would be about sternum height of the ball carrier doesn’t crouch down.

Just out of interest is still point of contact? Or post-contact.

Point of contact. 

You make valid points about the mitigants here -  he does have some things in his favour,  but we have seen a fair few bans for high tackles at this height. 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I mean,  it's clear cut.  If it's high,  he has a case to answer,  if it's not,  it's all good. 

I'm not sure why some people are so against pulling foul play. 

Probably because I have watched Rugby League for almost 40 years and tackles like Welsby's have probably been my favourite part of the game. I love big hits which were clearly not intended to be deliberate high shots.

And now we are freeze framing them to find a way to punish the tackler.

[DavidM]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That is quite a strange position though.  Because something is fast and we missed it on first viewing doesn't mean it should be ignored. 

A slick pickpocket doesn't get free rein. 

Well I’m strange . You end up working back looking for something that really isn’t there in some instances . I’d be staggered if anything came out of this. Somethings are there and blatant and are missed but often now we’re working back examining tackles to explain an end result like it must be foul play . The NRL spends hours with lawyers going through things frame by frame . It’s rugby league it’s tough 

[Dave T]

Just now, FearTheVee said:

I’m not against pulling foul play, it just wasn’t foul play.

No doubt Knowles’s foul play will get him a ban.

I'm happy that the disciplinary will review and decide.  I'm happy to send my stills if they help

I think it's a dangerous tackle,  it possibly reminds me of the Cas wingers reckless tackle versus Hull KR where he was binned and then banned. 

But I'm OK with whatever the disciplinary decide after weighing up the full technique. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Probably because I have watched Rugby League for almost 40 years and tackles like Welsby's have probably been my favourite part of the game. I love big hits which were clearly not intended to be deliberate high shots.

And now we are freeze framing them to find a way to punish the tackler.

Well no.  We use evidence (including freeze frame) in disciplinary to try and stop foul play. 

If its contact with the head,  it's illegal. I'm not sure why that would be anyone's favourite part of the game. 

[DavidM]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure why some people are so against pulling foul play. 

But what is foul play ? You can find it if you look hard enough . Week in week out I’ll watch tackles like that and no one will say anything but great shot 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Well I’m strange . You end up working back looking for something that really isn’t there in some instances . I’d be staggered if anything came out of this. Somethings are there and blatant and are missed but often now we’re working back examining tackles to explain an end result like it must be foul play . The NRL spends hours with lawyers going through things frame by frame . It’s rugby league it’s tough 

If its not there,  there will be no evidence. 

[Dave T]

Just now, DavidM said:

But what is foul play ? You can find it if you look hard enough . Week in week out I’ll watch tackles like that and no one will say anything but great shot 

That isn't true. 

It's a bizarre statement. We should be looking hard for foul play. 

Players get banned all the time for high tackles.  Leeds are appealing week in week out about it. 

[FearTheVee]

49 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

I think it's a shame we've arrived at a place where Saints fans don't think the rules should apply to them as it wouldn't be convenient for an upcoming game.

Only kidding. I've watched RL for 30 years and they've always been in that place.

So you’d ban him for that tackle then? Genuine question?

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Well no.  We use evidence (including freeze frame) in disciplinary to try and stop foul play. 

If its contact with the head,  it's illegal. I'm not sure why that would be anyone's favourite part of the game. 

I know. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

[Harry Stottle]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Because my screen grabs were so popular on the match thread (and I have finally worked out how to resize to upload here)  I have another couple. 

I think Welsby has a couple of problems with his tackle. The first image shows that his tackling shoulder is raised above his own head and despite crouching his own back which is positive for him,  he does raise his tackling arm. 

The 2nd pic shows the point of contact,  and whilst it is blurry,  suggests it is in the face. 

Thanks for those Dave it goes to confirm what I have said, if Atkins is upright the tackle would have been in his chest area, he puts his head into the contact area.

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Well I’m strange . You end up working back looking for something that really isn’t there in some instances . I’d be staggered if anything came out of this. Somethings are there and blatant and are missed but often now we’re working back examining tackles to explain an end result like it must be foul play . The NRL spends hours with lawyers going through things frame by frame . It’s rugby league it’s tough 

Yes quite, and that is the pedantic view of the Judiciary not just commentators on social media sites.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks for those Dave it goes to confirm what I have said, if Atkins is upright the tackle would have been in his chest area, he puts his head into the contact area.

If my aunt had ###### she'd be my uncle. But she hasn't so she isn't. *for anyone who gets the reference.

If you hit someone in the face you hit them in the face. It can be accidental.

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks for those Dave it goes to confirm what I have said, if Atkins is upright the tackle would have been in his chest area, he puts his head into the contact area.

As we used to see players trying to duck under tackles