Sat 22 July : Betfred RL Challenge Cup Semi Final : St Helens v Leigh Leopards KO 14:30 BBC1

[Josef K]

Phew wee what a thrilling game and congratulations to Leigh they thoroughly deserved the win. It was all Saints in the first half, but with their predictable drop off pass and then plodding back down the middle and then finishing it off with a woeful dolly catch Leigh had no problems. In the second half Leigh stepped up another gear and we(saints) had no answer to it, we have no Plan B. Leigh’s pack was excellent in fact they was good all over the park. Lam is a great player too watch.
Saints only used their centres & wingers as forwards to cart the ball up from the line.
The Saints glory days are over, but it happens in all sports but we need a huge clear out, we have NO pace, Hopoate had a decent game but he is slow. As for Hurrell he is so unfit, every time he goes down i always think he’ll need a crane to get him back up, he must’ve been amazed Saints offered him a new deal. Dodd offers nothing, Lees is massively overrated with his 2nd or 3rd man in tackles. His clean breaks are as likely as hens teeth. As for Mata’utia he can bog off, what an idiot and a liability. 
I have seen enough of Wellens and his tactics & comments, if Saints got rid at the end of the season i would be happy with it. I just couldn’t understand him only using three of the four subs despite us suffering injuries during the game, what was that all about. Davies is a rubbish player but why put him on the bench!!!!!. 
 Wellens is a S—- bootleg Woolf. 

[phiggins]

It looked like a football team where one team looks very good in general play between both penalty boxes, but no good at all in either penalty box.

The fact that both teams scored two tries, despite saints having multiple times more opportunities and territory should be a worry for Wellens. Lam will want to address the fact that we struggled to make any yards, and our kicking game was very poor.

[Saint Toppy]

19 hours ago, binosh said:

Nothing wrong with either of these tackles IMO, gets down low, first man in shoulder first and clearly wraps the arms, if he doesn’t do the one on Paasi which the commentators were raving about Leigh lose that game.

Interestingly, with the new rules set to come out on tackling below the chest tackles like these will probably become the new normal. It’s just unlucky Paasi has injured himself.

I'd be interested to know what the actual RFL rules are regarding these kind of tackles ? The NRL is a bit more clear cut in that you can't directly tackle the joint (knee or ankle). Under NRL rules both those tackles would have been at least a yellow card whether it was intentional or accidental. The duty of care is placed entirely on the tackler to ensure they dont directly contact the joint.

[Dave T]

Tackle below the knee

1. (c) When a player in possession is held in an upright position by two defenders, any other defender(s) must make initial contact to the player in possession above the knees/knee joint regardless of the point of impact. A player can still be penalised for any ‘forceful, dangerous or unnecessary contact’ at the legs that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to the player 
in possession.

-----------

The above is from the international laws. Where it is misleading is that even if yiu were held up by only one person and attack the knees I expect a penalty would come. 

And I'm not sure whether the 2nd sentence is linked to the first or independent of it. 

[Lowdesert]

53 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Tackle below the knee

1. (c) When a player in possession is held in an upright position by two defenders, any other defender(s) must make initial contact to the player in possession above the knees/knee joint regardless of the point of impact. A player can still be penalised for any ‘forceful, dangerous or unnecessary contact’ at the legs that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to the player 
in possession.

-----------

The above is from the international laws. Where it is misleading is that even if yiu were held up by only one person and attack the knees I expect a penalty would come. 

And I'm not sure whether the 2nd sentence is linked to the first or independent of it. 

Do the Panel refer to International laws for CC and SL games?

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Lowdesert said:

Do the Panel refer to International laws for CC and SL games?

Not sure, not always that easy to navigate the website to get clear guidance! 

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Tackle below the knee

1. (c) When a player in possession is held in an upright position by two defenders, any other defender(s) must make initial contact to the player in possession above the knees/knee joint regardless of the point of impact. A player can still be penalised for any ‘forceful, dangerous or unnecessary contact’ at the legs that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to the player 
in possession.

-----------

The above is from the international laws. Where it is misleading is that even if yiu were held up by only one person and attack the knees I expect a penalty would come. 

And I'm not sure whether the 2nd sentence is linked to the first or independent of it. 

Though, I would say that in the case of the two Asiata tackles, he was the first man on both. And I think his initial contact was actually above the knee. Will see what the panel says shortly, but anything more than a two game ban would be appealed I imagine. They might even appeal any ban, unless the panel point to a specific rule that has been broken. Can't ban someone because you don't like the look of a tackle.

[meast]

17 hours ago, Snowys Backside said:

Why should any of these tackles be reviewed ?

Asiatas technique is probably borderline suicidal for his own health !

The amount of shoulder charges going unpunished though from St Helens, especially Lees, is becoming laughable but to give him credit, he embraced Amone at the end of the game and gave him a thumbs up. Can’t knock that. 

I'm just offering my opinion, I'm not part of the match review panel to decide if they should be reviewed or not.

My opinion is that both tackles were reckless and dangerous, for both the attacker and defender and with the importance of looking after players so high that's the kind of thing the sport want to clampdown on.

[sweaty craiq]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Tackle below the knee

1. (c) When a player in possession is held in an upright position by two defenders, any other defender(s) must make initial contact to the player in possession above the knees/knee joint regardless of the point of impact. A player can still be penalised for any ‘forceful, dangerous or unnecessary contact’ at the legs that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to the player 
in possession.

-----------

The above is from the international laws. Where it is misleading is that even if yiu were held up by only one person and attack the knees I expect a penalty would come. 

And I'm not sure whether the 2nd sentence is linked to the first or independent of it. 

This covers the extra man coming in when the momentum has been stopped by others, this is not relevant to Asiata when the player was in full flow. 

[Superb Chops]

15 hours ago, Szymala said:

Fair enough. I was going to say 'dispensed with', actually, which would have been more accurate. Anyway, kudos to Lam & Derek for spotting a gem on his doorstep.

Absolutely. Lam and Leigh are in front of Wigan in all competitions currently. It is great for RL. 

[Jughead]

No charges for John Asiata’s cannonball tackles. Either of them. Incredibly poor and dangerous precedence set by the sport. 

[phiggins]

16 minutes ago, Jughead said:

No charges for John Asiata’s cannonball tackles. Either of them. Incredibly poor and dangerous precedence set by the sport. 

No understanding of what a cannonball tackle is. Incredibly poor and dangerous understanding of the sport.

[Harry Stottle]

13 minutes ago, Jughead said:

No charges for John Asiata’s cannonball tackles. Either of them. Incredibly poor and dangerous precedence set by the sport. 

Absolutely the correct adjudication, the panel may never have even discussed the tackles, we may never know that!

To all those who said let us see what the panel comes up, were expecting to say I told you so had Asiata been cited, I maintained all along the tackles were legal, so all I can say is "I told you so", smug mode.

[phiggins]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Absolutely the correct adjudication, the panel may never have even discussed the tackles, we may never know that!

To all those who said let us see what the panel comes up, were expecting to say I told you so had Asiata been cited, I maintained all along the tackles were legal, so all I can say is "I told you so", smug mode.

They were discussed, but deemed no further action.

Think this is the Paasi one "Player makes legitimate initial contact with upper thigh of opponent who is moving forward. Legitimate actions of teammate with upper body contact force opponent’s body in two different directions."

And think this is the Walmsley one: "Player goes to make legitimate low tackle on person who is running towards him and arm is knocked away from wrapping by opponent’s leg."

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/MRP Minutes 24 July 2023.pdf

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

No understanding of what a cannonball tackle is

And he keeps us letting us believe he is the font of all RL knowledge, 

[Jughead]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Absolutely the correct adjudication, the panel may never have even discussed the tackles, we may never know that!

To all those who said let us see what the panel comes up, were expecting to say I told you so had Asiata been cited, I maintained all along the tackles were legal, so all I can say is "I told you so", smug mode.

Tackling leading with the head and attacking the joints, moving them into an unnatural position is foul play, whether the disciplinary (who aren’t exactly known for their consistency) see that or not. A dangerous precedent set now, leading with the head is a-okay and attacking blokes joints is okay, let’s not worry season ending injuries. 

[hullste]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Absolutely the correct adjudication, the panel may never have even discussed the tackles, we may never know that!

To all those who said let us see what the panel comes up, were expecting to say I told you so had Asiata been cited, I maintained all along the tackles were legal, so all I can say is "I told you so", smug mode.

Got to totally disagree although fully expected the match review panel to do nothing  . iMO they have set an extremely dangerous precedent, two players potentially seriously injured from the same tackle technique is not unlucky. In this day and age when we ban someone for two games for a late tackle despite there being minimal risk of injury yet we are ok with players targeting the knee joint either accidentally or deliberately with force and smashing one players knee to smithereens Perhaps the international laws and those applied in the NRL are different as they outlaw direct contact to those joints and as a result the MRP's hands were tied but if others start applying that technique we are going to see a lot of serious injuries.

[Jughead]

8 minutes ago, phiggins said:

No understanding of what a cannonball tackle is. Incredibly poor and dangerous understanding of the sport.

Yes it is. A variation of a classic but still a cannonball nonetheless. 

[Southampton Leyther]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

They were discussed, but deemed no further action.

Think this is the Paasi one "Player makes legitimate initial contact with upper thigh of opponent who is moving forward. Legitimate actions of teammate with upper body contact force opponent’s body in two different directions."

And think this is the Walmsley one: "Player goes to make legitimate low tackle on person who is running towards him and arm is knocked away from wrapping by opponent’s leg."

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/MRP Minutes 24 July 2023.pdf

Think that wraps things up nicely. 

Absolutely hysterical reaction from some to determined defence chopping down 2 big lads by taking the legs. It's textbook stuff taught at U7's. Pathetic over reaction. Great defence. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

They were discussed, but deemed no further action.

Think this is the Paasi one "Player makes legitimate initial contact with upper thigh of opponent who is moving forward. Legitimate actions of teammate with upper body contact force opponent’s body in two different directions."

And think this is the Walmsley one: "Player goes to make legitimate low tackle on person who is running towards him and arm is knocked away from wrapping by opponent’s leg."

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/MRP Minutes 24 July 2023.pdf

Thanks for the clearing that up Higgy, 60 years ago I was taught to tackle around the legs, "they can't go anywhere without their legs" the teachers would tell us and without that tackle on Passi around the legs, Saints would be going somewhere most likely to Wembley.

[Jughead]

Just now, hullste said:

Got to totally disagree although fully expected the match review panel to do nothing  . iMO they have set an extremely dangerous precedent, two players potentially seriously injured from the same tackle technique is not unlucky. In this day and age when we ban someone for two games for a late tackle despite there being minimal risk of injury yet we are ok with players targeting the knee joint either accidentally or deliberately with force and smashing one players knee to smithereens Perhaps the international laws and those applied in the NRL are different as they outlaw direct contact to those joints and as a result the MRP's hands were tied but if others start applying that technique we are going to see a lot of serious injuries.

Paasi’s done for the year, he won’t be seen till early next year if we’re lucky. Walmsley is less likely to be a season ender as he played on but you never know with these scans. 

[Jughead]

7 minutes ago, phiggins said:

They were discussed, but deemed no further action.

Think this is the Paasi one "Player makes legitimate initial contact with upper thigh of opponent who is moving forward. Legitimate actions of teammate with upper body contact force opponent’s body in two different directions."

And think this is the Walmsley one: "Player goes to make legitimate low tackle on person who is running towards him and arm is knocked away from wrapping by opponent’s leg."

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/MRP Minutes 24 July 2023.pdf

What’s legitimate about tackling with your head? 

[phiggins]

2 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Yes it is. A variation of a classic but still a cannonball nonetheless. 

But it isn't. A cannonball tackle is when the third man in a tackle hits the standing player in the leg. Asiata was first contact, and in both instances, initial contact was above the knee. 

[Snowys Backside]

2 minutes ago, Jughead said:

What’s legitimate about tackling with your head? 

Unless your Matautia !  ' Its legitimate about tackling round your head !!'

I thought his tackle was worst than the Shorrocks one, although when i played both would have been considered 'Good Hits !!'

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, Jughead said:

What’s legitimate about tackling with your head? 

He didn't tackle with his head. He tackled with his shoulder. I mean, he could chop his own head off, throw it away and then try to tackle someone, but I'd say that's a difficult skill to pull off. 

Do you think he's been headbutting players in the knees?