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

[Jughead]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Soccer, rightly, makes 'reckless' a red line. If you are out of control then you have no ability to control the damage you do.

And it's a straight red.

If we want a sport that lasts in the future, that's the direction we'll be heading in.

Good. That’s where we should be. 

[Dunbar]

34 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

Don't jump horizontally with eyes to the floor, one's hands as extras and use the head/shoulders to effect the 'tackle'.

Something that should be targeted, à la chicken-wing tackles, cannonballs, etc.

While I have stated several times that the tackles were ugly, it is not possible to penalise tacklers for being horizontal or where they were looking with their eyes.

And besides, if we did state that as a new law, then neither were in effect for the Walmsley tackle and so how do we outlaw that one, write another law?

[M j M]

After what they did last season the St Helens club doesn't have any right to complain about RFL processes or being unfairly treated.

[Jughead]

1 minute ago, M j M said:

After what they did last season the St Helens club doesn't have any right to complain about RFL processes or being unfairly treated.

Saints saw the disciplinary’s flimsy findings and pushed back against them. I suspect any club would have done the same. Rather than it being the catalyst for change, it’s used as a stick to beat Saints with. Strange old world.

[StandOffHalf]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

While I have stated several times that the tackles were ugly, it is not possible to penalise tacklers for being horizontal or where they were looking with their eyes.

And besides, if we did state that as a new law, then neither were in effect for the Walmsley tackle and so how do we outlaw that one, write another law?

Maybe. Or just a cover-all about feet off the ground and leading with shoulder/head in dangerous, reckless fashion.

I don't want to see another player get injured by someone diving at his knee.

[David Dockhouse Host]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Soccer, rightly, makes 'reckless' a red line. If you are out of control then you have no ability to control the damage you do.

And it's a straight red.

If we want a sport that lasts in the future, that's the direction we'll be heading in.

That's a good example, I think it's easier in football to prove.

Refs and MRP have a battle to be consistent now, imagine how difficult policing general recklessness would be, so subjective.

[David Dockhouse Host]

8 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Saints saw the disciplinary’s flimsy findings and pushed back against them. I suspect any club would have done the same. Rather than it being the catalyst for change, it’s used as a stick to beat Saints with. Strange old world.

I think the point here is the potential hypocrisy. Fight to overturn a ban for your own player for a dangerous tackle/act but demand a ban for an opposing player.

Granted the situations are not identical but the sentiments are.

Edited July 25, 2023 by David Dockhouse Host

[David Dockhouse Host]

Just now, PEANUT HEAD said:

Why did walmsley stay on the pitch if it was that bad,or was it staying on the pitch that as made it worse.

Maybe didn't realise the extent of the injury, adrenaline, will to win etc.

Medically I'm sure it could make it worse but doubt it could be proven.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

That's a good example, I think it's easier in football to prove

That is a good point. Obviously, in soccer, you are less likely to be behaving 'close to reckless but in control' but I still think it's a decent dividing line and also removes the guesswork around 'intentional' which, personally, I think can be impossible to determine.

[LeeF]

17 minutes ago, Jughead said:

A quick scour of Twitter throws up no direct threats but the odd idiot hoping he does his knee and people calling him a grub. 

I’m not sure what relevance this has. Wellens has faced increased pressure in the aftermath of Saturday’s defeat, as it was bubbling under the surface anyway. I actually think the outcome of the disciplinary allowing someone to attack four separate players and cause significant injury to one has probably and his clearly emotional interview has probably won him some fans back and changed fans’ expectations for the rest of the season. 

Actually on subject though, someone speaking out at cowardice and thuggery onfield and wanting it stamped out should be listened to. Cries of “yeah but remember that time [insert player name] did this…” and instances of when players got punished by the disciplinary doesn’t and shouldn’t take away from the point being made today. 

 

Wellens being two faced is relevant to the discussion and is how these things develop on forums especially ones like these.

He also is using the time honoured “squirrel” technique as favoured by under pressure coaches. If that wins him some fans then so be it. I’m just not as easily fooled. 

Finally “cowardice” and “thuggery”. Nothing like keeping a discussion reasonable is there  

 

[LeeF]

6 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I think the point here is the potential hypocrisy. Fight to overturn a ban for your own player for a dangerous tackle/act but demand a ban for an opposing player.

Granted the situations are not identical but the sentiments are.

A ban for an opposing player who hasn’t actually broken a law of the game 

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

Maybe. Or just a cover-all about feet off the ground and leading with shoulder/head in dangerous, reckless fashion.

I don't want to see another player get injured by someone diving at his knee.

I don't want to see reckless tackles, but leading with the shoulder has been a perfectly executed tackle as long as Rugby League has been around.

[hullste]

39 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I think I'm right in saying they are only factors with illegal tackles, this wasn't considered illegal so wouldn't be considered.

I agree it looks reckless and clumsy but many good hard tackles are reckless attempts at speed as they have no respect for their own bodies.

It's a difficult one I agree, but not sure how this tackle could be policed. I juries happen with good tackles and bad tackles don't always lead to injuries so not a great measure

Interesting that Wellens said that concerns had been raised about his tackle technique earlier in the season but the RFL chose to do nothing to address the concerns. I do wonder if they will be forced to address it now before more serious injuries are sustained???

[gingerjon]

Just now, Dunbar said:

I don't want to see reckless tackles, but leading with the shoulder has been a perfectly executed tackle as long as Rugby League has been around.

So leading with the shoulder can't be reckless?

[johnh1]

1 hour ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

On the subject of banning the defender due to player welfare, how do people feel about the semi final chicken wing that was overturned. 

Different tackles but it's the same sentiments.

Wellens didn't comment on that I notice.

Edited July 25, 2023 by johnh1

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

So leading with the shoulder can't be reckless?

A shoulder charge is specifically mentioned as not being allowed although they are classed as indirect/ secondary, direct or other 

[Neil Monaghan]

Welsby and James Bell did similar tackles to Asiata on Saturday, but because the opposing players didn't get injured,we don't hear anything about them. 

[Jughead]

13 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Wellens being two faced is relevant to the discussion and is how these things develop on forums especially ones like these.

He also is using the time honoured “squirrel” technique as favoured by under pressure coaches. If that wins him some fans then so be it. I’m just not as easily fooled. 

Finally “cowardice” and “thuggery”. Nothing like keeping a discussion reasonable is there  

 

Then get rid of the disciplinary then as nobody can say anything about anyone being tackled high and late in case they’ve also tackled someone high and late. See, it’s mad, isn’t it? It’s a strawman argument. 

Again, Wellens’ job status is some sort of odd strawman that doesn’t really have any relevance to anything. Saints could have won on Saturday (which would have meant that Wellens had won one final and been 80 minutes from winning another in Y1) and I’m sure the same interview would have occurred that’s occurred today. 

Yes, cowardice and thuggery. At best, it’s reckless endangerment and if we can’t protect players from reckless behaviour, the sport is gone and it’s not one I want to be a part of. 

[Dunbar]

10 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So leading with the shoulder can't be reckless?

That's quite a superficial point.

Of course leading with the shoulder can be reckless.  When it is contact with the head or a cannonball tackle on a held player are a couple of examples.

But that is not the discussion.  We are talking about a player tackling around the legs of a ball carrier as first contact.  The point is, are we looking to make that tackle leading with the shoulder illegal. 

[PEANUT HEAD]

I know let's outlaw tackling altogether and play pattercake instead,this game is played big strong physical athletes you are going to get injuries, can't see how you are going to police tackling around the legs cause the whole head high tackle and contact with the head thing as gone that far you could penalise every tackle.

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 minute ago, PEANUT HEAD said:

I know let's outlaw tackling altogether and play pattercake instead,this game is played big strong physical athletes you are going to get injuries, can't see how you are going to police tackling around the legs cause the whole head high tackle and contact with the head thing as gone that far you could penalise every tackle.

Then fans would complain of inconsistent pattercake rule application from officials

[LeeF]

5 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Then get rid of the disciplinary then as nobody can say anything about anyone being tackled high and late in case they’ve also tackled someone high and late. See, it’s mad, isn’t it? It’s a strawman argument. 

Again, Wellens’ job status is some sort of odd strawman that doesn’t really have any relevance to anything. Saints could have won on Saturday (which would have meant that Wellens had won one final and been 80 minutes from winning another in Y1) and I’m sure the same interview would have occurred that’s occurred today. 

Yes, cowardice and thuggery. At best, it’s reckless endangerment and if we can’t protect players from reckless behaviour, the sport is gone and it’s not one I want to be a part of. 

You like the strawman word although I don’t think you understand it as you aren’t using it correctly. 
 

As for your last paragraph. What are you on about. I’ll leave you to it though as you must be leaving the forum if you genuinely think that which is so far from the truth and more important reality. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

The MRP (Match review pattercakers) have no idea what they are doing.

[David Dockhouse Host]

2 minutes ago, LeeF said:

You like the strawman word although I don’t think you understand it as you aren’t using it correctly. 
 

As for your last paragraph. What are you on about. I’ll leave you to it though as you must be leaving the forum if you genuinely think that which is so far from the truth and more important reality. 

Tu Quoque is probably more accurate 

[StandOffHalf]

24 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I don't want to see reckless tackles, but leading with the shoulder has been a perfectly executed tackle as long as Rugby League has been around.

Hence, shoulder/head and feet off the ground. I think that would counteract the type of tackle that Asiata used.

I love a good solid shoulder contact up-top. It was one of the things that brought me to the game as a boy.