This week's disciplinary.

[Tommygilf]

An interesting point I've seen made is that if Atkin stays down, the tackle is reviewed there and then by the refs and video refs. Potentially, gets a card for contact with the head there and then.

Atkin doesn't stay down and so this review doesn't take place.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

What Welsby did was out of the ordinary (and I understand why people love it).  Players don't do it because it is high risk. 

Welsby does have some form for the flying "big hit" that is sometimes on the line between aggressive and reckless. Certainly to the extent that duty of care to the opponents is not near the forefront of decision making.

This from Magic Weekend:

 

[Chris22]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Hep Cahill 9 years ago was a very famous example on Brett Hodgson,  it can be found on YouTube. 

Here is that tackle. I'm not convinced that Welsby's head contact (if there was any) is anywhere near as forceful as this.

I've looket at the sentencing guidance. Aggravating factors are: Previous Record, Violence, Retaliation, Injury caused an Incident not part of play. I don't believe any apply.

Mitigating factors are: Previous Good Record, provocation, technique or Fitness in some cases, Genuine Remorse. Welsby has a good record.

Where a tackle is deemed careless and the ball carrier dips, that is either a grade a or b. A would carry no ban, B would.

If it is deemed reckless, then it would be at least a grade b and a ban would follow.

The disciplinary process is so subjective, inconsistency is inevitable. Where is the line between careless and reckless?

I'd be surprised to see a ban.

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

An interesting point I've seen made is that if Atkin stays down, the tackle is reviewed there and then by the refs and video refs. Potentially, gets a card for contact with the head there and then.

Atkin doesn't stay down and so this review doesn't take place.

I don't think Atkin knew where he was when he got to his feet. He did Welsby a huge favour but I think if he was thinking straight he would have stayed down.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

Here is that tackle. I'm not convinced that Welsby's head contact (if there was any) is anywhere near as forceful as this.

I've looket at the sentencing guidance. Aggravating factors are: Previous Record, Violence, Retaliation, Injury caused an Incident not part of play. I don't believe any apply.

Mitigating factors are: Previous Good Record, provocation, technique or Fitness in some cases, Genuine Remorse. Welsby has a good record.

Where a tackle is deemed careless and the ball carrier dips, that is either a grade a or b. A would carry no ban, B would.

If it is deemed reckless, then it would be at least a grade b and a ban would follow.

The disciplinary process is so subjective, inconsistency is inevitable. Where is the line between careless and reckless?

I'd be surprised to see a ban.

Agreed,  the relevance here is how a tackler going low doesn't get him off.  Hodgson had slipped very low.  There was a lot of debate at the time,  but it was absolutely around rib-height. 

I think your assessment of grading may be slightly dated. 

The grades are classed as either reckless or intentional now. A-D for reckless and D-E for intentional. 

If this was deemed a chargeable offence,  Grade A would be zero,  Grade B one match,  Grace C two matches and so on due to his record being fine. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see a Grade A. 

[Dunbar]

28 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Well I’m strange and bizarre . To me I love tackles like that , I watch rugby for great play and big shots like that . It’s hard and it’s brutal , good . Microanalysing every tackle is just totally contrary to the nature of the game in my opinion , and you take out tackles like that  you change the whole nature of the game and for the worse . That’s my view , the game has become over sanitised as it is and when you watch it and see the rubbish that goes on it isn’t always for the better spectacle . That’s just my view as well . Blatant foul play yes , but somethings just happen as part of the game at that level 

I agree with this.

This isn't a stiff arm or a punch.  This is someone looking to put in a legitimate big hit with his shoulder.  It is not an attempt at dirty play, it is something that has been at the heart of the game for as long as it has existed. 

Yes, he may get punished if the contact was above the shoulder.  By the letter of the law that would be correct but it doesn't feel right to me. 

I have spent my life watching Rugby League players put big shots on each other and getting up and going again (as we saw here in fact).  If we are going to use ultra slow motion and screen shots to find out a way to ban them then it may be in the laws but it's not for me.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I agree with this.

This isn't a stiff arm or a punch.  This is someone looking to put in a legitimate big hit with his shoulder.  It is not an attempt at dirty play, it is something that has been at the heart of the game for as long as it has existed. 

Yes, he may get punished if the contact was above the shoulder.  By the letter of the law that would be correct but it doesn't feel right to me. 

I have spent my life watching Rugby League players put big shots on each other and getting up and going again (as we saw here in fact).  If we are going to use ultra slow motion and screen shots to find out a way to ban them then it may be in the laws but it's not for me.

I understand the frustration.  But Brierley thought it was illegal instantly,  and the tackled player was dazed with blood coming from his face. 

We've used video evidence for decades now. 

[Loiner]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

We will see what the panel come up with.

My view is that the Welsby one was a cracking tackle and the Knowles one was a sin bin but nothing more.

Deary me, Welsby maybe I thought it was a great tackle to be fair at the time, but knowles I think you need to go have a lie down in a padded cell. It was disgusting could have dislocated his shoulder.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I agree with this.

This isn't a stiff arm or a punch.  This is someone looking to put in a legitimate big hit with his shoulder.  It is not an attempt at dirty play, it is something that has been at the heart of the game for as long as it has existed. 

Yes, he may get punished if the contact was above the shoulder.  By the letter of the law that would be correct but it doesn't feel right to me. 

I have spent my life watching Rugby League players put big shots on each other and getting up and going again (as we saw here in fact).  If we are going to use ultra slow motion and screen shots to find out a way to ban them then it may be in the laws but it's not for me.

I understand what you are saying but Atkin could have easily ended by with a broken nose, jaw or cheekbone. Is it only because he didn't that people view it more lightly? With the dangers of concussion in the spotlight it is not just became of the obvious injuries that mean the game needs to take firm action on foul play.

Accidental or not it is still foul play and should be punished accordingly in my opinion. Plenty of players accidentally get tackles wrong. I have no doubt that Bateman didn't mean to do what he did either but he should still get banned.

[Loiner]

59 minutes ago, 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 if the ball carrier doesn’t crouch down.

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

Doesn't matter if he's crouching down if he head contact with the head hes in trouble. Widdop was falling when Bentley smacked him in the mouth still copped a ban.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Deary me, Welsby maybe I thought it was a great tackle to be fair at the time, but knowles I think you need to go have a lie down in a padded cell. It was disgusting could have dislocated his shoulder.

Maybe.  I would be happy to be proved wrong and perhaps the review panel will come up with a significant charge.

I felt that holding a wrist and putting the shoulder in an unnatural position is not too much more than we see on the ground with players using levers to control the body of their opponent.  This was just more visible as it was upright.

As I say, may be wrong. I am open to be persuaded with sensible logical points (maybe more persuasive than the padded cell comment in fact).

[Moove]

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Welsby does have some form for the flying "big hit" that is sometimes on the line between aggressive and reckless. Certainly to the extent that duty of care to the opponents is not near the forefront of decision making.

This from Magic Weekend:

 

How is that example evidence of Welsby not showing duty of care? If he wasn't showing duty of care there he wouldn't have hit Field front-on ball first, wouldn't have wrapped his arms and would have just smashed him in the chops. Or is there a limit on how hard you can tackle a player fairly that I don't know about?

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Doesn't matter if he's crouching down if he head contact with the head hes in trouble. Widdop was falling when Bentley smacked him in the mouth still copped a ban.

Falling or crouching hasn't been an excuse all season.

[FearTheVee]

8 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Doesn't matter if he's crouching down if he head contact with the head hes in trouble. Widdop was falling when Bentley smacked him in the mouth still copped a ban.

I’m not being lazy but I can’t find a link to either this tackle or the other referenced Fonua tackle (I assume it’s not the one of Field that he was binned for some reason but not banned).

Dont suppose anyone can help?

[Damien]

.

[Loiner]

50 minutes ago, Dave T said:

As we've seen though,  that isn't a defence.  There is no requirement for a ball carrier to keep his head at full height.  There is a requirement on the tackler not to hit the head. 

This debate has been had many,  many times this year,  and pretty much every time,  contact with the head has led to a ban.  

IMHO Welsby has a fe wthings in his favour that suggests he is attempting a legal tackle,  he bends his back slightly,  he wraps both arms,  moves his head to the side. On the flip side,  his tackling shoulder is raised,  contact does appear to be in the face,  and the pace of the tackle leads to a reckless tackle without control. I think the disciplinary could go either way on this one. 

By the way,  as much as I enjoy the Saints rivalry,  I would add that as an England fan I would have Knowles,  Welsby and also Bateman in my England squads and I'm not happy that they all face bans this week. 

 

Sorry Dave, Bateman should be no where near the England team on this seasons performances. It's a shame for Liam  Farrell, Bateman  couldn't lace his boots.

[FearTheVee]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

The shoulder to the face is the giveaway. That shows no duty of care. He flew in, committed himself and essentially lost control and the ability to react to any change in circumstance. If he had hit Atkin on the chest there would be no discussion, he didn't and it was flush in the face.

I think he was asking how an example of a perfectly fair tackle on Field is proof Welsby has a reckless streak.

[Dunbar]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

I understand what you are saying but Atkin could have easily ended by with a broken nose, jaw or cheekbone. Is it only because he didn't that people view it more lightly? With the dangers of concussion in the spotlight it is not just became of the obvious injuries that mean the game needs to take firm action on foul play.

Accidental or not it is still foul play and should be punished accordingly in my opinion. Plenty of players accidentally get tackles wrong. I have no doubt that Bateman didn't mean to do what he did either but he should still get banned.

And I understand that.  I am not naive, I know what I enjoy will never return but I just enjoyed the hit because it was a flash back to the time when big hits were the most physical part of the game and not wrestling or managing levers.

[Damien]

Just now, FearTheVee said:

I think he was asking how an example of a perfectly fair tackle on Field is proof Welsby has a reckless streak.

Yes I know I misread, hence immediately deleting my post.

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

Falling or crouching hasn't been an excuse all season.

That's my point it should be, there was a big to do by the coaches in Aus saying if it goes on by the refs and judiciary that people are going to turned away from the game, the refs have not been as liberal with the whistle or cards since.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Sorry Dave, Bateman should be no where near the England team on this seasons performances. It's a shame for Liam  Farrell, Bateman  couldn't lace his boots.

I'm good with Bateman being in the squad.  Whilst he hasn't had the best season,  there are certain players that will never let you down at that level,  I think he's in that camp. 

[Loiner]

49 minutes ago, DavidM said:

We’ll see what happens . I’ve enjoyed this discussion though , it’s given me a distraction …

Distraction from what may I ask ?

[Damien]

Just now, Dunbar said:

And I understand that.  I am not naive, I know what I enjoy will never return but I just enjoyed the hit because it was a flash back to the time when big hits were the most physical part of the game and not wrestling or managing levers.

As I said I understand exactly where you are coming from. I admit my first reaction was what a hit and that it was a fantastic tackle. Then I saw it again and it looked worse and worse on each viewing. Now I have no doubt it was foul play. I also have no doubt it was accidental. I even have no doubt Atkin was falling. However people have been banned all season for contact like this and accidental or falling/crouching has been no excuse. If we are to be consistent then it should be punished in line with what we have seen this season.

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

Falling or crouching hasn't been an excuse all season.

These are the notes from the Ben Currie hit on David Fusitu’a early in the season.

High Tackle

Careless – ball carrier dips

Grade A

Sanctions:

0 Match Penalty Notice

So the ball carrier dipping is a consideration in the disciplinary process.

[FearTheVee]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

As I said I understand exactly where you are coming from. I admit my first reaction was what a hit and that it was a fantastic tackle. Then I saw it again and it looked worse and worse on each viewing. Now I have no doubt it was foul play. I also have no doubt it was accidental. I even have no doubt Atkin was falling. However people have been banned all season for contact like this and accidental or falling/crouching has been no excuse. If we are to be consistent then it should be punished in line with what we have seen this season.

What tackle would you say is most comparable that got a ban? Ie someone bending their back and wrapping arms and hitting at that height?

again, genuine question.