Saints lose Walmsley and Paasi for the rest of the season.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

Of course but as a kid no one was taught to hit the knee or even thigh you were taught as I say to tackle round the waist and slide down. It’s even mentioned by Rohan Smith in his video that he’s never seen anyone teach this tackle technique. I don’t think there’s any intent from him and I don’t think he should be getting some massive ban but I do think the least the RFL could do is advise him on a poor tackle technique that’s dangerous for both him and opponents.

Tackling around the waist is not the way I was taught it was as I said driving the shoulder into the thigh and wrapping the arms around, in another post I mentioned that this very same technique was taught to coaches on the RFL Coaching course by non other than Phil Larder who was the Rugby Leagues Director of Coaching.

[bobbruce]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Tackling around the waist is not the way I was taught it was as I said driving the shoulder into the thigh and wrapping the arms around, in another post I mentioned that this very same technique was taught to coaches on the RFL Coaching course by non other than Phil Larder who was the Rugby Leagues Director of Coaching.

Funny that because the Phil Larder videos show players hitting around the waist for side on tackles. 

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, bobbruce said:

Funny that because the Phil Larder videos show players hitting around the waist for side on tackles. 

That isn't the way I remember it Bob.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

That isn't the way I remember it Bob.

@bobbruceAnd I was on one-to-one with Frank Wilson an assistant of Mr Larder on the course.

[Lowdesert]

16 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

@bobbruceAnd I was on one-to-one with Frank Wilson an assistant of Mr Larder on the course.

You are correct other than the head goes to the side, never head on.  That applies to side, rear, front passive and blockbuster tackles.

No doubt you got marked down

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Lowdesert said:

You are correct other than the head goes to the side, never head on.  That applies to side, rear, front passive and blockbuster tackles.

No doubt you got marked down

I did say that in the post I referred to LD "make sure your head is behind or adjacent to the legs"

[Lowdesert]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

I did say that in the post I referred to LD "make sure your head is behind or adjacent to the legs"

Not in the post I looked at about 5 quotes ago.  I haven’t looked at those previous so I can’t really apologise for that.

There are finer details to it but nowhere in the rfl coaching manual did it say ‘head directly onto the limb’ or similar bullet style tackle terminology.

Larder or any other RFL coach taught that.  
 

Phil did teach how to fiddle the rules at small sided games though!

[Damien]

Double standards and a changing narrative depending on if its a Saints player:

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Damien

[Fevrover]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

Double standards and a changing narrative depending on if its a Saints player:

 

Very interesting, i wait with baited breath on the responses to this ---

[johnh1]

9 hours ago, Southampton Leyther said:

I think a key thing here is to step back, stop going off one frame pictures (picked to suit either argument) or super slowed down footage.

Watch it at full speed, as it happened.

12,000+ people watched it live and nobody was in any sort of uproar. The commentary team praised it as committed defence, and even though the Paasi one was right in front of the Saints fans there didn't seem to be any outrage during the game. 

Watch the clips, the whole clips in full speed as they happened live and it gives a clear picture to me. Desperate defending, putting your body on the line to try and win a massive game and lead your team to Wembley.

MRP agrees and the witch hunt from Saints and Wellens is completely unwarranted. 

This is, in my opinion, the best contribution on this whole thread.

[The Blues Ox]

Just had chance to see the tackle on Walmsley again and that one is a pretty clear illegal tackle. No attempt to wrap his arms so its a pretty clear shoulder charge which is outlawed wherever it is on the attacker. For me this one is the worst of the two incidents.

[Snowys Backside]

2 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Just had chance to see the tackle on Walmsley again and that one is a pretty clear illegal tackle. No attempt to wrap his arms so its a pretty clear shoulder charge which is outlawed wherever it is on the attacker. For me this one is the worst of the two incidents.

Walmsley played on and played a huge part in Saints last try. 
 

when did he hurt his leg ?  Was this collision a ‘stinger’ or was it serious enough for him not to continue yet for his coach to disregard his welfare and ensure he continued regardless ?

FWIW, I though Asiata was wrong footed for the Walmsley tackle, but it wasn’t deliberately grubby (like Matautias)

No one likes to see injuries, but there is no evidence to state it was intentional foul play. 

[StandOffHalf]

4 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Just had chance to see the tackle on Walmsley again and that one is a pretty clear illegal tackle. No attempt to wrap his arms so its a pretty clear shoulder charge which is outlawed wherever it is on the attacker. For me this one is the worst of the two incidents.

I thought exactly the same watching live - although the Leigh tackler up top didn't improve Walmsley's chances of coping with Asiata's attack.

[DACS]

Personally I thought both tackles looked horrible at full speed. Its awful technique, and given the injuries it has to be looked at even if it may not strictly speaking be illegal (exactly the reason why the 'hip drop' suddenly saw a spate of suspensions in the NRL early this season).

For those saying it was an act of desperation, would the tackler have thought for one second about diving like that front on? Course not, because he'd most likely cop a knee to the head and be out. From behind it could be safe-ish, but the height from the side means he was always going to hit somewhere round the knee. Add a foot grounded and another defender looking to control the upper body and its a recipe for injury.

We've seen lots of things previously considered to be uncontrollable miraculously stop the minute players start picking up big bans or getting sent off (remember when some people said players couldn't avoid punching each other?). I don't even think this one is too hard to define - intentional shoulder contact at or around knee height from the side. There you go.  Like Rohan Smith said, this is NOT a normal technique. It may happen every now and then, and it may not have caused serious injuries in the past, but two is enough for me.

 

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, DACS said:

Personally I thought both tackles looked horrible at full speed. Its awful technique, and given the injuries it has to be looked at even if it may not strictly speaking be illegal (exactly the reason why the 'hip drop' suddenly saw a spate of suspensions in the NRL early this season).

For those saying it was an act of desperation, would the tackler have thought for one second about diving like that front on? Course not, because he'd most likely cop a knee to the head and be out. From behind it could be safe-ish, but the height from the side means he was always going to hit somewhere round the knee. Add a foot grounded and another defender looking to control the upper body and its a recipe for injury.

We've seen lots of things previously considered to be uncontrollable miraculously stop the minute players start picking up big bans or getting sent off (remember when some people said players couldn't avoid punching each other?). I don't even think this one is too hard to define - intentional shoulder contact at or around knee height from the side. There you go.  Like Rohan Smith said, this is NOT a normal technique. It may happen every now and then, and it may not have caused serious injuries in the past, but two is enough for me.

 

I'm not sure we need to introduce any new laws.  This technique is so unique, I have literally never seen it (so obvious) in 40 years.  It doesn't strike me as a revolutionary new and effective defence and I really don't think people are going to replicate with the intention of injuring opponents. 

As for banning the intentional shoulder contact at or around knee height from the side.  That feels to me like a huge can of worms.  All tackles are intentional and so you are essentially saying that side tackles to the legs will be outlawed. 

[The Blues Ox]

8 hours ago, Snowys Backside said:

Walmsley played on and played a huge part in Saints last try. 
 

when did he hurt his leg ?  Was this collision a ‘stinger’ or was it serious enough for him not to continue yet for his coach to disregard his welfare and ensure he continued regardless ?

FWIW, I though Asiata was wrong footed for the Walmsley tackle, but it wasn’t deliberately grubby (like Matautias)

No one likes to see injuries, but there is no evidence to state it was intentional foul play. 

Not a clue about the injury, just commenting on the tackle which by the letter of the law is I believe illegal.

[The Blues Ox]

6 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

I thought exactly the same watching live - although the Leigh tackler up top didn't improve Walmsley's chances of coping with Asiata's attack.

Again going back to one of my previous posts, very similar to the outlawed chop block in the NFL where you can't attack the lower limbs if someone is engaged with the upper body.

[GeordieSaint]

3 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Not a clue about the injury, just commenting on the tackle which by the letter of the law is I believe illegal.

I don’t think anyone does regarding Walmsley’s injury - and he actually gets hit with another of Asiata’s tackles in the lead up to the Lomax try. It’s when Ipape wallops him up top; Asiata goes really low from the side. 

[Gomersall]

Degsy tweeting that Asiata has played 90% minutes of all Leigh games this season and has never been penalised once for his tackling technique.

[phiggins]

31 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I'm not sure we need to introduce any new laws.  This technique is so unique, I have literally never seen it (so obvious) in 40 years.  It doesn't strike me as a revolutionary new and effective defence and I really don't think people are going to replicate with the intention of injuring opponents. 

As for banning the intentional shoulder contact at or around knee height from the side.  That feels to me like a huge can of worms.  All tackles are intentional and so you are essentially saying that side tackles to the legs will be outlawed. 

It does, if you word it as "at or around", would make it too open to interpretation of where do you actually draw the line. 

Agree with other posts about the Walmsley challenge by the way. I was surprised that didn't result in a charge, was expecting a grade B, fine or 1 match ban, which is what has been given to the vast majority of illegal challenges. Including the one that put Nakubuwei out of action for 3 months.

[phiggins]

2 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

Degsy tweeting that Asiata has played 90% minutes of all Leigh games this season and has never been penalised once for his tackling technique.

I don't know whether that stands up to statistical scrutiny to be completely correct, but his general point is true. He rarely plays less than 70 minutes, Saturday will have been the least minutes he's played in a game all season. And don't recall many penalties given against him. Pretty sure he's had one or two charges (no bans), but not sure what they were for, could easily have been for late challenges on a kicker or something. 

[dkw]

17 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

Degsy tweeting that Asiata has played 90% minutes of all Leigh games this season and has never been penalised once for his tackling technique.

So he's been getting away with it so far then....lucky him.

[Snowys Backside]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Not a clue about the injury, just commenting on the tackle which by the letter of the law is I believe illegal.

Is it illegal ? If it was, it would have been a penalty and Asiata carded.

If Walmsleys forward motion had been stopped, and Asiata had gone in, I would have been the first on here to state 'throw the book at him'

I saw some very good pictures of what is 'deemed' to be the tackle in question on social media when Walmsley ran in like a raging bull, and he came inside and seemed to wrong foot Asiata. For me, it was just a mis-timed tackle which could have done more damage to the defender rather than the attacker. It was a split second action, not a pre meditated attack to any knee joint or to injure an opponent.

We see plenty of mis-times tackles in the game. Some are unfortunately, very nasty and head high but for me this is getting completely blown out of proportion.

If these players were not injured, people wouldn't say boo, and unlike Passi, Walmsley stayed on for 10 more minutes and continued to run on like a raging bull with silly tight strapping on his knee. For all we know, that might have made things worse. For some reason, nobody wants to discuss this yet this tackle on Walmsley was probably the more controversial of the 2.

The other 2 that Wellens is talking about, I haven't a clue !

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, DACS said:

For those saying it was an act of desperation, would the tackler have thought for one second about diving like that front on? Course not, because he'd most likely cop a knee to the head and be out. From behind it could be safe-ish, but the height from the side means he was always going to hit somewhere round the knee. Add a foot grounded and another defender looking to control the upper body and its a recipe for injury.

And you think all that was considered by both Leigh defenders in effecting the tackle, not at all, and neither did the adjudication panel had they done so I am sure one or both player's would now be serving suspensions.

THE TACKLE(s) WAS/WERE LEGITIMATE, just think how many officials were in proximity Ref, two linesmen, in goal judge, match adjudicator, and video ref and not one whistle, flag wave, motion or word in the refs earhole was forthcoming, ADD into that the Disciplinary Committee who had the benefit of replays real-time and slow motion and like the match officials on the day could find no rule breaking not only on these two incidents but the additional 2 that Wellens has thrown in and decided to stoke the fire with, which I think that in a couple of weeks he will regret the outburst.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[JohnM]

Could not agree more. Wellens has an eye patch over both his eyes. Talk about "entitled" .