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

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

The tackles certainly split opinion on here, which was no doubt replicated elsewhere. It’s always a good idea to ignore the fringe elements on here though… especially if the blood pressure is a bit dicky…

Ha! Good advice regardless of blood pressure!

[Lowdesert]

30 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes they are tackles that would be taught, but with one proviso 'get your head in the correct position, behind or adjacent to the leg coming forward'

They aren’t.  

[hullste]

44 minutes ago, phiggins said:

No, Jughead and Hullste seemed to have the most extreme views. Can’t recall anything particularly extreme from you. Can’t remember what you posted specifically but can’t argue with anything in this post 

Not an extreme view just thought it was very dangerous, the angles I've seen on the TV appear to show direct contact with force on the knee joint on Paasi. The MRP must have a different/ clearer video. I never said it was malicious and there is no doubt he put his own body in harm's way. Think one on here called the tackle orgasmic or something like that using that language for a tackle that has caused a serious potentially career ending injury is the most outrageous thing I've read on here.

[phiggins]

13 minutes ago, hullste said:

Not an extreme view just thought it was very dangerous, the angles I've seen on the TV appear to show direct contact with force on the knee joint on Paasi. The MRP must have a different/ clearer video. I never said it was malicious and there is no doubt he put his own body in harm's way. Think one on here called the tackle orgasmic or something like that using that language for a tackle that has caused a serious potentially career ending injury is the most outrageous thing I've read on here.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the first part. From replays I saw, I thought it was contact with the thigh. And my very first post on Paasi's injury was to say that I thought the injury was as a result of one tackler going one way, while another went the opposite direction. Still not sure of the legality of that, or how you legislate to stop that happening.

On the second point, I think in fairness that was about the reaction to seeing it live, without knowing there's an injury caused. Have to say, I've certainly never reacted that strongly to a tackle, the missed conversion at the end however... 

[LeeF]

18 minutes ago, hullste said:

Not an extreme view just thought it was very dangerous, the angles I've seen on the TV appear to show direct contact with force on the knee joint on Paasi. The MRP must have a different/ clearer video. I never said it was malicious and there is no doubt he put his own body in harm's way. Think one on here called the tackle orgasmic or something like that using that language for a tackle that has caused a serious potentially career ending injury is the most outrageous thing I've read on here.

You’ve clearly not read much on this forum

[LeytherRob]

14 minutes ago, hullste said:

Not an extreme view just thought it was very dangerous, the angles I've seen on the TV appear to show direct contact with force on the knee joint on Paasi. The MRP must have a different/ clearer video. I never said it was malicious and there is no doubt he put his own body in harm's way. Think one on here called the tackle orgasmic or something like that using that language for a tackle that has caused a serious potentially career ending injury is the most outrageous thing I've read on here.

They said they thought it as it happened, which would be no different from the commentators on the game who were praising the tackle as it saved a certain try. It's incredibly unfortunate that Paasi has picked up the injury he has, but as noted in the MRP minutes, it was a result of 2 legal tackles that combined to put him in an awkward position due to the opposing forces. 

[sweaty craiq]

2 hours ago, phiggins said:

It was for a late tackle, not a high tackle. 

"Contact off the ball. Strikes – strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – reckless."

Not high and deserving of a caution at worst

[Wolford6]

As a Bulls fan, I can honestly say that the Leeds Rhinos have never done a fair tackle in history.

[meast]

3 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

That’s not the reality of what happened on here - less maybe one or two posters. Plenty of people including myself said the tackles looked ugly; in particular the Paasi tackle. But if the disciplinary panel have deemed no case to answer, then fine, no issue. 

Good luck in the final. Looking forward to it. 

I too thought the tackles looked reckless, clumsy and dangerous but not necessarily malicious.

I also raised concerns that this technique could catch on if it's deemed legal and fair game and thought there may have been at least a caution or word on his technique.

I'm still concerned that there may be copycat attempts, which then leaves the MRP and disciplinary panel open to more criticism.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, hullste said:

Not an extreme view just thought it was very dangerous, the angles I've seen on the TV appear to show direct contact with force on the knee joint on Paasi. The MRP must have a different/ clearer video. I never said it was malicious and there is no doubt he put his own body in harm's way. Think one on here called the tackle orgasmic or something like that using that language for a tackle that has caused a serious potentially career ending injury is the most outrageous thing I've read on here.

It was me that described the tackle such, but if you read again what I said it was stated at the moment the tackle was effected, Passi is 99.9% certain of scoring, that 'legal' tackle as it has been ajudged prevented the score, it is most probably one of the best tackles delivered ever to stop an opponent scoring, I feel very sorry that Passi was injured in the situation, but according to the panel it was because the tackles - again legal - on the upper body twisted Passi resulting in the leg injury.

[Harry Stottle]

38 minutes ago, meast said:

I too thought the tackles looked reckless, clumsy and dangerous but not necessarily malicious.

I also raised concerns that this technique could catch on if it's deemed legal and fair game and thought there may have been at least a caution or word on his technique.

I'm still concerned that there may be copycat attempts, which then leaves the MRP and disciplinary panel open to more criticism.

As long as the tackler going round the legs is the first man in no problem with it.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

They aren’t.  

Well I was taught to go round the legs, I also went on the very first coaches courses run by the RFL and devised by Phil Larder and he went through the rudiments of teaching the leg tackling technique to your charges, just don’t get your head in the way.

And could I just add these were days long before the wrestle became vogue.

Edited July 24, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Wolford6 said:

As a Bulls fan, I can honestly say that the Leeds Rhinos have never done a fair tackle in history.

I have seen them performed but they miss them, plenty of examples if you care to look.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, sweaty craiq said:

Not high and deserving of a caution at worst

Why a caution? 

That would be saying Asiata did something wrong, which he clearly did not.

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Why a caution? 

That would be saying Asiata did something wrong, which he clearly did not.

He was talking about Ipape I think 

[Snowys Backside]

I will be honest, I think Ipape deserved 1 game. 
 

No need for the contact. Lucky we didn’t concede the 2 points but Makinson would have probably missed from under the sticks !

[hullste]

 

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

As long as the tackler going round the legs is the first man in no problem with it.

https://fb.watch/l_qRGOQntC/

Not first man though?

[meast]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

As long as the tackler going round the legs is the first man in no problem with it.

Preferably not with the shoulder though?

[meast]

23 minutes ago, hullste said:

 

https://fb.watch/l_qRGOQntC/

Not first man though?

That angle looks really dangerous, he doesn't have any control and not even looking at his target, head down and bang.

Strange way to complete a perfectly legal tackle

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, hullste said:

 

https://fb.watch/l_qRGOQntC/

Not first man though?

Looks pretty much simultaneous to me. As for the caption that’s gone on that Facebook post, it’s just absurd. 

[phiggins]

48 minutes ago, meast said:

Preferably not with the shoulder though?

What part of their body should a tackler make contact with? Shoulder is fine as long as you wrap your arms around to make a tackle. 

[hullste]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

Looks pretty much simultaneous to me. As for the caption that’s gone on that Facebook post, it’s just absurd. 

Not my post just the first video of the incident I found. If your saying pretty much simultaneous I'll take from that your accepting he was second in (just). Holmes tackle was pretty weak and  doesn't really take him the opposite way either as was stipulated by the MRP, all the impact is low down from Asiata whose arms come out but make no attempt to wrap round they just collapse to the ground. I agree it is not the definition of a cannonball as the rules stipulate but it is  the technique is similar to a cannonball.

 

[phiggins]

1 minute ago, hullste said:

Not my post just the first video of the incident I found. If your saying pretty much simultaneous I'll take from that your accepting he was second in (just). Holmes tackle was pretty weak and  doesn't really take him the opposite way either as was stipulated by the MRP, all the impact is low down from Asiata whose arms come out but make no attempt to wrap round they just collapse to the ground. I agree it is not the definition of a cannonball as the rules stipulate but it is  the technique is similar to a cannonball.

 

Yes, it’s either simultaneous or holmes a split second earlier. But nothing like a second tackler coming in on someone who is ‘held’

Disagree on your second point though. I think Holmes does tackle in the opposite direction, which is why he lands on top of him. What i didn’t know was whether there was anything in the rulebook about simultaneous tackles in opposite directions that contort an attacker into an unnatural position. Seemingly not, which I suspect will change. 

Have said all along, was expecting something between NFA and 2 games with anything beyond that being extremely harsh given how charges have gone this season. 

Most important point is, I hope the injury isn’t as bad as first feared and he can make a speedy recovery

[Exiled Wiganer]

4 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

Not high and deserving of a caution at worst

Or a straight red if committed by a Wigan player.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, hullste said:

Not my post just the first video of the incident I found. If your saying pretty much simultaneous I'll take from that your accepting he was second in (just). Holmes tackle was pretty weak and  doesn't really take him the opposite way either as was stipulated by the MRP, all the impact is low down from Asiata whose arms come out but make no attempt to wrap round they just collapse to the ground. I agree it is not the definition of a cannonball as the rules stipulate but it is  the technique is similar to a cannonball.

 

OK I will say it, you stated you played the game, was it tick and pass? Sorry but you seem to have no understanding about contact at speed.