This week's disciplinary.

[johnh1]

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

It's a thread regarding this weeks disciplinary and so I'm talking about the parties involved. Salford aren't part of that.

Atkin and Salford were involved in the incidents in question.

[Loiner]

24 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Just watched it. Very surprised you think there is any real comparison between the two.

Welsby has his feet planted and is head on, bending his back and wrapping his arms. Bentley’s is a flying one armed smack in the head with his swinging forearm.

I'm not saying there's any comparison apart from there was contact with the head in both cases. Both recipients of the tackle were either ducking into or slipping into the tackle. For what its worth I don't think Welsby did much wrong that's worthy of a

 

13 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Someone apparenty the know on the saints site has both Knowles and Welsby banned for the final (grading meeting held this morning apparently?)

So that should please those amongst us with a dislike of players sprinting out to attempt tackles at rib height. Or Saints. Or both.

 

30 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Agreed on that,  but for some reason some Leeds fans haven't let that tackle from Rd 1 go! 

Bentley's was very clear cut. 

 

32 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Agreed on that,  but for some reason some Leeds fans haven't let that tackle from Rd 1 go! 

Bentley's was very clear cut. 

 I'll take the dig on the chin Dave but it's the only instance I could think of on the spurr of the moment. Widdop was slipping Atkin was dipping is there any difference both players smacked in the head, Bentleys looked worse I'll grant you. 

 

 

[Tommygilf]

7.30 pm for the results

[Loiner]

26 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Someone apparenty the know on the saints site has both Knowles and Welsby banned for the final (grading meeting held this morning apparently?)

So that should please those amongst us with a dislike of players sprinting out to attempt tackles at rib height. Or Saints. Or both.
 

If true of course!

Probably a load of guff, Knowles yes Welsby no.

[Damien]

7 minutes ago, johnh1 said:

Atkin and Salford were involved in the incidents in question.

I'm not sure why you keep replying and are making a big deal out of this. I have already said Salford get nothing out of retrospective action. That's clear and is always the case in these matters, everyone realises that. If it makes you happy Saints win and the RFL win, you know the two parties involved in the disciplinary proceedings. Not sure why that isn't everyone but you are obviously still sore.

[Loiner]

16 minutes ago, Damien said:

He was found guilty but got no ban.

Quite right but nothing in the game no penalty no sin bin. And Fusitua missed two games due to concussion.

[FearTheVee]

3 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Quite right but nothing in the game no penalty no sin bin. And Fusitua missed two games due to concussion.

Well at least Leeds had some good news out of it too then

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Moove said:

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?

A hit with no wrapping of the arms is always going to be on the line of duty of care. I believe it is banned in Union.

[Dunbar]

2 hours 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:

 

What's wrong with that? This is Rugby League isn't it.

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Quite right but nothing in the game no penalty no sin bin. And Fusitua missed two games due to concussion.

I've no idea, I didn't bring up the incident and I don't believe that was why Dunbar did either.

[Moove]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

A hit with no wrapping of the arms is always going to be on the line of duty of care. I believe it is banned in Union.

Well yes, but the arms were wrapped on the clip you showed from Magic Weekend.

[johnh1]

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

I'm not sure why you keep replying and are making a big deal out of this. I have already said Salford get nothing out of retrospective action. That's clear and is always the case in these matters, everyone realises that. If it makes you happy Saints win and the RFL win, you know the two parties involved in the disciplinary proceedings. Not sure why that isn't everyone but you are obviously still sore.

Just giving my opinion. Sorry if that upsets you or the rules of the forum don't allow it. As long as Saints come out of it ok, that's the main thing. 

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

What's wrong with that? This is Rugby League isn't it.

Nothing, but he's close to being out of control hence him flying past

[Damien]

1 minute ago, johnh1 said:

Just giving my opinion. Sorry if that upsets you or the rules of the forum don't allow it. As long as Saints come out of it ok, that's the main thing. 

Yes because I obviously want Saints to get off and no one banned.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Nothing, but he's close to being out of control hence him flying past

Being close to being out of control is not the same as being out of control.  This is a bit too much Minority Reportish future crime for me.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Yes because I obviously want Saints to get off and no one banned.

Its one of the worst discussion habits of places like this,  people think you can't discuss anything without it being about who we like/hate etc. That natural instinct leads to silly claims like that you responded to. 

I'm certainly no Saints fan,  that is true,  but I have no desire to see top players out of the GF,  and definitely not from the WC.  But I do think the two incidents were illegal and could face bans. 

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

Didn't work out like that for James Bentley.

 

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Agreed on that,  but for some reason some Leeds fans haven't let that tackle from Rd 1 go! 

Bentley's was very clear cut. 

As if by magic

[LeeF]

41 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

7.30 pm for the results

They really should make it a weekly TV series. It would rival Eastenders for viewing figures

[GeordieSaint]

I don’t think Dave T’s opinion on this thread holds any credibility…

… His team hasn’t competed any tackles, legal or illegal, this season so his understanding is very much out of date.

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

I don’t think Dave T’s opinion on this thread holds any credibility…

… His team hasn’t competed any tackles, legal or illegal, this season so his understanding is very much out of date.

Why do you think I'm having to busy myself by bringing about the downfall of your team?  

[Jughead]

I’ll be shocked and disappointed if Welsby misses out. Arms are wrapped a to make a tackle, any head contact is accidental and not reckless, to me, which is the wording that gets used a lot. That said, he has had a few Grade A’s that have been zero games, I don’t know if there is an accumulation effect that could potentially go against him. 

Knowles is out of Saturday and that’s fine. He deserves to be, unfortunately for Saints. Makinson’s is never a ban in a million years, mind. 

[bobbruce]

4 hours 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.

I agree but I said on the other thread the Knowles one will come down to a technicality of what actually constitutes a chicken wing. Would I would say is I’d really feel for Welsby getting a ban for that but Knowles only has himself to blame it was stupid. 

[Dunbar]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

 

 

Just looking at that video again.  The tackle the video starts with - two Saints players hold a player upright and Bachelor going in low without using his arms and forcing the ball carrier to bend backwards - seems like a more dangerous tackle to me.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Just looking at that video again.  The tackle the video starts with - two Saints players hold a player upright and Bachelor going in low without using his arms and forcing the ball carrier to bend backwards - seems like a more dangerous tackle to me.

Jeez,  don't be adding another to the list! 

I think 3rd man in is fine,  it's only if he attacks the knees against the joint,  and I think he was a bit higher. 

Actually,  sod it,  throw it on the list! 

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Jughead said:

I’ll be shocked and disappointed if Welsby misses out. Arms are wrapped a to make a tackle, any head contact is accidental and not reckless, to me, which is the wording that gets used a lot. That said, he has had a few Grade A’s that have been zero games, I don’t know if there is an accumulation effect that could potentially go against him. 

Knowles is out of Saturday and that’s fine. He deserves to be, unfortunately for Saints. Makinson’s is never a ban in a million years, mind. 

There is no accumulation effect on Grade A. 

The only way he will be banned is if he gets charged at Grade B or above.  Grade A would be zero as he only actually has one charge in the last 24months.