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

[Tommygilf]

I am a Leeds fan. I have no love for St Helens.

I agree with, and I can't believe I'm saying this, Rohan Smith! And Tony. I also agree with what others have posted on here. Namely that the actions weren't illegal currently, that they will likely be in future, and thay players have to bear responsibility for eachother's welfare on the field.

There is a difference between hurting your opponents honestly to establish dominance and attempting to achieve that through recklessly and/or maliciously hurting them. I personally believe Asiata's tackles were in the reckless category. Likewise I think Knowles' chicken wing that he received a paltry "punishment" for at the end of last season was malicious. This isn't club specific or personal. I think Asiata is reckless because he is as likely to receive a major head injury with that tackling technique as he is to injure his opponents.

Its hard to provide consistent punishment to reckless actions as there's no intent and the damage to the opponent almost has to be included by default; ignorance is also no defence. 

[The Masked Poster]

17 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I am a Leeds fan. I have no love for St Helens.

I agree with, and I can't believe I'm saying this, Rohan Smith! And Tony. I also agree with what others have posted on here. Namely that the actions weren't illegal currently, that they will likely be in future, and thay players have to bear responsibility for eachother's welfare on the field.

There is a difference between hurting your opponents honestly to establish dominance and attempting to achieve that through recklessly and/or maliciously hurting them. I personally believe Asiata's tackles were in the reckless category. Likewise I think Knowles' chicken wing that he received a paltry "punishment" for at the end of last season was malicious. This isn't club specific or personal. I think Asiata is reckless because he is as likely to receive a major head injury with that tackling technique as he is to injure his opponents.

Its hard to provide consistent punishment to reckless actions as there's no intent and the damage to the opponent almost has to be included by default; ignorance is also no defence. 

I'd agree with you. 

It's just that I have watched the incident repeatedly, slow mo....the lot. And I still can't see what people are talking about. 

Of course, PW is using this as an argument that his team have been put at a disadvantage and have lost players. I'll ignore the fact that St Helens have more than contributed to players being injured and just reiterate, I could have watched that clip a thousand times and had Wellens not kicked off about it because one of his players got injured, I'd not have seen anything wrong - I still don't. His only alternative was to literally not tackle him and let him score. And what player is going to do that? 

It's unfortunate if any player, at ANY level gets injured during a game of RL but sadly it happens. 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

I'd agree with you. 

It's just that I have watched the incident repeatedly, slow mo....the lot. And I still can't see what people are talking about. 

Of course, PW is using this as an argument that his team have been put at a disadvantage and have lost players. I'll ignore the fact that St Helens have more than contributed to players being injured and just reiterate, I could have watched that clip a thousand times and had Wellens not kicked off about it because one of his players got injured, I'd not have seen anything wrong - I still don't. His only alternative was to literally not tackle him and let him score. And what player is going to do that? 

It's unfortunate if any player, at ANY level gets injured during a game of RL but sadly it happens. 

"His only alternative was to literally not tackle him and let him score. And what player is going to do that?"

Our rules are there to put limits on that attitude. Otherwise we'd have players being knocked out because "otherwise I'd have let him score". 

Of course the sport carries inherent risks, but the vast majority of those risks come from the players to themselves and eachother. A full 90+kg muscle bound player driving shoulder first into the side of someone's knee will likely result in the outcome Paasi has come out with. 

A lot of our rules were designed for men who didn't train full time or receive elite nutritional advice from 14. The power they can call upon perhaps is beyond what the rules currently can account for. 

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

"His only alternative was to literally not tackle him and let him score. And what player is going to do that?"

Our rules are there to put limits on that attitude. Otherwise we'd have players being knocked out because "otherwise I'd have let him score". 

Of course the sport carries inherent risks, but the vast majority of those risks come from the players to themselves and eachother. A full 90+kg muscle bound player driving shoulder first into the side of someone's knee will likely result in the outcome Paasi has come out with. 

A lot of our rules were designed for men who didn't train full time or receive elite nutritional advice from 14. The power they can call upon perhaps is beyond what the rules currently can account for. 

I'm going to be pedantic again, the shoulder of Asiata went into the side of Paasi's thigh, not his knee. There will be a number of factors that led to that injury, the combination of the low + high tackle being the one mentioned by the MRP. 

If direct contact with the knee isn't outlawed already, then that should be an easy one to bring in. But it wouldn't have made any difference to how the tackle on Paasi was judged by the disciplinary. 

[Harry Stottle]

49 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Our rules are there to put limits on that attitude. Otherwise we'd have players being knocked out because "otherwise I'd have let him score". 

That statement is the biggest load of bolox you have ever said Tommy.

[Harry Stottle]

52 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

A lot of our rules were designed for men who didn't train full time or receive elite nutritional advice from 14. The power they can call upon perhaps is beyond what the rules currently can account for. 

Then what do you suggest, alter the rules in such a way that it becomes totally unrecognisable from what has preceded it for nigh on hundred years.

I am all eyes and ears Tommy, I am really interested in your blueprint to take this sport forward and make it 'safer' and appealing to the masses, please don't dissapoint.

[Tommygilf]

22 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

That statement is the biggest load of bolox you have ever said Tommy.

It isn't though is it. We play a sport to the rules that we deem acceptable. Some sports deem injuring opponents perfectly acceptable, most others, like ours, take a more nuanced approach and set that bar somewhere between minimal contact and allowed violence.

We don't just let people do anything on a rugby pitch.

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Then what do you suggest, alter the rules in such a way that it becomes totally unrecognisable from what has preceded it for nigh on hundred years.

I am all eyes and ears Tommy, I am really interested in your blueprint to take this sport forward and make it 'safer' and appealing to the masses, please don't dissapoint.

I think the game is heading that way anyway, and in any case a lot of the current rules aren't the same as they were before 30 years ago, and likewise 30 years before that, and 30 years before that. The sport is almost unrecognisable from what it was nigh on a hundred years ago. In your lifetime you have seen some of the biggest transitions, but played out in slow mo.

FWIW, I think there will come a ruling on recklessly injuring an opponent - causing defenders to consider what they are doing a bit more carefully. Likewise I think tackle coaching will focus far more on the shoulders to hips area first and foremost (which is arguably going back in time).

I think that will be appealing as people like to see big front up hits, not second man tackles to the legs.

[Chris22]

13 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

That is a huge generalisation. The likes of @Chris22, @bobbruce et al have been pretty open about how frustrated we are with Saints’ awful disciplinary record this year as an example. 

Is it really that outrageous anyway?

Of course fans of a club will take a greater interest when a particular style of tackle results in four injuries to key players, including two long term injuries!

[The Masked Poster]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

"His only alternative was to literally not tackle him and let him score. And what player is going to do that?"

Our rules are there to put limits on that attitude. Otherwise we'd have players being knocked out because "otherwise I'd have let him score". 

Of course the sport carries inherent risks, but the vast majority of those risks come from the players to themselves and eachother. A full 90+kg muscle bound player driving shoulder first into the side of someone's knee will likely result in the outcome Paasi has come out with. 

A lot of our rules were designed for men who didn't train full time or receive elite nutritional advice from 14. The power they can call upon perhaps is beyond what the rules currently can account for. 

Quite apart from the fact that I aren't advocating a free for all....

So tell me this, why was there no reaction from the players or crowd at the time? We've all seen the clothes line tackles or two hour late challenges and they always invoke a response, usually "off off off" but for this? Nothing.

I'll concede that it's entirely possible for me to miss the incident - but a whole stadium of RL fans in a semi final?? Come on

And I don't mean "who cares" I mean I didn't see anything that warrants such a reaction. Genuinely 

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Quite apart from the fact that I aren't advocating a free for all....

So tell me this, why was there no reaction from the players or crowd at the time? We've all seen the clothes line tackles or two hour late challenges and they always invoke a response, usually "off off off" but for this? Nothing.

I'll concede that it's entirely possible for me to miss the incident - but a whole stadium of RL fans in a semi final?? Come on

And I don't mean "who cares" I mean I didn't see anything that warrants such a reaction. Genuinely 

Because objectively it doesn't "look as bad". I think its as simple as that.

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, Chris22 said:

Is it really that outrageous anyway?

Of course fans of a club will take a greater interest when a particular style of tackle results in four injuries to key players, including two long term injuries!

No - of course not. Just pointing out the fallacy that we’ve only shown an interest in poor technique since the weekend. 

[Snowys Backside]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Because objectively it doesn't "look as bad". I think its as simple as that.

Only looks bad because the player got injured? Even when I watched the commentary of the game, not one person mentioned that any tackle was 'borderline' or 'dodgy'.

During the game, both incidents happened right in from of 5500 St Helens fans. I didn't here one groan, one moan or one fan shouting for any player to be 'Sent Off'.   Matautia - Different and that was pre meditated, deliberate, late dirty head high tackle for which he has form.

Harry is justified is his cross examination of your statement. Asiata is Leighs Captain. He ran his blood to Water and he probably would have knocked himself out to ensure that his club reached their goal of a Wembley appearance for the first time in 52 years, even if it means he couldn't play himself. Maybe he should have let Passi score, just to appease everyone that he couldn't have stopped him without tackling him low.

Just because things were not 'copybook' doesn't mean he did anything wrong, but boy some of the **** he is getting is completely unjustified.

To me, it was just the desperate nature of a true Captain and Warrior wanting his team to progress. The aftermath was unfortunate.

Now, it looks like the RFL are going to be in a dilemma now because of this. You cant shoulder charge anymore, no big hits and with the sounds of it, you cant tackle legs next year if Wellens gets his way. What next ? We will have no game left at this rate.

What will Richie Myler be able to cheat about if players can only tackle hip to torso ?

This is the problem now in Rugby League. Its turning from a mans sport to a sport full of whingers and cheats. There will be nothing left for IMG to worry about at this rate and almost a week on, we are still going on about it !!!

[LeytherRob]

4 hours ago, phiggins said:

I'm going to be pedantic again, the shoulder of Asiata went into the side of Paasi's thigh, not his knee. There will be a number of factors that led to that injury, the combination of the low + high tackle being the one mentioned by the MRP. 

If direct contact with the knee isn't outlawed already, then that should be an easy one to bring in. But it wouldn't have made any difference to how the tackle on Paasi was judged by the disciplinary. 

The only thing they could do is make legislation of where contact ends, currently unless it involves contact to the head only judgement is made on the initial contact and as noted by the MRP the initial contact was made with the thigh which made them legal tackles.

[Gomersall]

On 25/07/2023 at 21:02, David Dockhouse Host said:

If your chasing down a player your likely to grab below the knee 

Although it resulted in an ankle tap can we now claim the 2017 WC as Dugan was obviously aiming too low with his technique?

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Snowys Backside said:

This is the problem now in Rugby League. Its turning from a mans sport to a sport full of whingers and cheats.

This is not the problem. Paasi has potentially had his career ended because of the reckless actions of an opponent. Discussion on this should not be shut down because of what teams were involved, or "should he have just let him score".

[Chris22]

3 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

No - of course not. Just pointing out the fallacy that we’ve only shown an interest in poor technique since the weekend. 

The most frustrating point of Saturday for me remains Mata'utai's needless late hit.

Without that, Makinson's conversion would have been to win the match and the pressure is very different!

[Tippytoe]

8 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I am a Leeds fan. I have no love for St Helens.

I agree with, and I can't believe I'm saying this, Rohan Smith! And Tony. I also agree with what others have posted on here. Namely that the actions weren't illegal currently, that they will likely be in future, and thay players have to bear responsibility for eachother's welfare on the field.

There is a difference between hurting your opponents honestly to establish dominance and attempting to achieve that through recklessly and/or maliciously hurting them. I personally believe Asiata's tackles were in the reckless category. Likewise I think Knowles' chicken wing that he received a paltry "punishment" for at the end of last season was malicious. This isn't club specific or personal. I think Asiata is reckless because he is as likely to receive a major head injury with that tackling technique as he is to injure his opponents.

Its hard to provide consistent punishment to reckless actions as there's no intent and the damage to the opponent almost has to be included by default; ignorance is also no defence. 

I can honestly say I can see the end to Rugby in both codes it seems that people's perception of the game in general is that its too dangerous,I love Rugby league but for me it's self imploding Wellens has some valid points but seems to be on a one man mission to dilute the game out of existence yet compared to boxing is quite tame my take on it time will tell.

[Cheadle Leyther]

Wellens obviously trying to deflect attention to his own ineptitude as coach!!

[OnStrike]

1 hour ago, Chris22 said:

The most frustrating point of Saturday for me remains Mata'utai's needless late hit.

They need to be moving him on in fairness

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, Chris22 said:

The most frustrating point of Saturday for me remains Mata'utai's needless late hit.

Without that, Makinson's conversion would have been to win the match and the pressure is very different!

The back row have been awful discipline wise this year. Mata’utai, Sironen and Knowles, ably supported by Lees. Considering how old the other starters are, it’s not surprising we have struggled to exert any dominance this season. 

[Damien]

19 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

That is a huge generalisation. The likes of @Chris22, @bobbruce et al have been pretty open about how frustrated we are with Saints’ awful disciplinary record this year as an example. 

You are moving the goalposts with this. There is a world of difference between criticising your teams general discipline and these types of tackles. Wellens has already displayed double standards on this and we all know how many Saints fans have defended tackles committed by Knowles in the past.

[GeordieSaint]

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

You are moving the goalposts with this. There is a world of difference between criticising your teams general discipline and these types of tackles.

I’m really not. 

[Chris22]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

 we all know how many Saints fans have defended tackles committed by Knowles in the past.

Do we? I didn't see any Saints fan defending Knowles' tackles on these threads?

Morgan Knowles faces ban...you know the rest... - The General Rugby League Forum - Total Rugby League Fans Forum (totalrl.com)

Morgan Knowles at the RFL Disciplinary... - The General Rugby League Forum - Total Rugby League Fans Forum (totalrl.com)

This week's disciplinary. - The General Rugby League Forum - Total Rugby League Fans Forum (totalrl.com)

[The Masked Poster]

9 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Because objectively it doesn't "look as bad". I think its as simple as that.

Unless they are all executed with precision and textbook timing, pretty much all tackles in a RL match could be analysed and found to be dangerous. That's the reality.