Disciplinary at it again.

[Dunbar]

22 minutes ago, dboy said:

It's an absolute fact that Namo committed a foul, contrary to the Laws of the Game.

Again, I will state for the record that if the panel come to the conclusion that the tackle was reckless or careless and therefore applied unnecessary pressure to Isa’s ankle (and caused injury) then I will accept that.

But I will also state that it is not an absolute fact, it is the judgement of the panel and I accept that judgement.

My judgement is that not all incidents that cause injury are a foul and in the instance I believe based on the evidence that I have seen that the injury was caused by an accidental collision between the knee of the tackler and the foot/ankle of the ball carrier.  I do not believe that this tackle was any more reckless than many we see in the game that have the potential to cause injury but thankfully do not.

Finally, I worry that we appear to be seeking to find blame in this instance (where a player has been seriously injured) due to the outcome and not the nature of the incident itself and I think that is a slippery slope.

Edited April 17 by Dunbar

[dboy]

The only people using the "blame" issue, are those trying to say it wasn't a foul (or "wasn't deliberate").

The nature of the incident is a foul.

I haven't seen anyone say Namo did it on purpose. It's irrelevant to the issue of it being a foul or not.

It IS relevant, as a mitigating factor, to the severity of the sentence.

[OriginalMrC]

Alot of rugby fans again have shown themselves up for not understanding their own sport and making excuses due to tribal loyalty. An unnecessary tackle, using poor technique, which severely injured another player is a ban all day long. Intent doesn't come into it!

Edited April 17 by OriginalMrC

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Alot of rugby fans again have shown themselves up for not understanding their own sport and making excuses due to tribal loyalty. An unnecessary tackle, using poor technique, which severely injured another player is a ban all day long. Intent doesn't come into it!

A lot to unpack there.

"shown themselves up for not understanding their own sport and making excuses due to tribal loyalty."  I don't see a lot of that on this thread, do you mean on here or in wider social media?

"An unnecessary tackle" why was it unnecessary?  We see a lot of 3rd man tackles bring a player to the ground.  Are they all unnecessary?  Like it of not, that is the way the game is played now.

"using poor technique, which severely injured another player is a ban all day long".  Poor technique is not a foul - breaking the laws of the game is a foul.

"Intent doesn't come into it"  apart from the fact identifying intent is stated as one of the guiding principles of the RFL disciplinary guidelines.

 

 

[Exiled Wiganer]

10 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Alot of rugby fans again have shown themselves up for not understanding their own sport and making excuses due to tribal loyalty. An unnecessary tackle, using poor technique, which severely injured another player is a ban all day long. Intent doesn't come into it!

Dunbar is a Wigan fan. I have not looked at the tackle - given what I have been told the result of it was, I am not sure I want to see it - but I would have thought the rules should give some guidance as to 1) if this tackle broke the rules, and 2) the severity of the rule breach (possibly differentiating between accidental, careless, reckless and deliberate etc). That establishes the case to answer. Then, as to sentencing, I am assuming that the extent of the injury is a pertinent factor in the sentencing. The guidelines must cover these points. 

[Damien]

23 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Alot of rugby fans again have shown themselves up for not understanding their own sport and making excuses due to tribal loyalty. An unnecessary tackle, using poor technique, which severely injured another player is a ban all day long. Intent doesn't come into it!

Tribal loyalty? I'm a Wigan fan and have already said it was an accident and that the ban was harsh. There's certainly nothing tribal about it when it was a Wigan player injured.

[dkw]

2 hours ago, dboy said:

Neither of which affects whether it is a foul tackle or not!!!"

That only affects the grading of the charge and the severity of the ban.

Why is this so hard for some people??!!

Because youve just randomly made up a completely different incident to defend your point of view, which is a complete waste of time and utter nonsense.

[dkw]

1 hour ago, OriginalMrC said:

Alot of rugby fans again have shown themselves up for not understanding their own sport and making excuses due to tribal loyalty. An unnecessary tackle, using poor technique, which severely injured another player is a ban all day long. Intent doesn't come into it!

Id love to know your opinion on what's an "unnecessary tackle" on a rugby pitch.

Edited April 17 by dkw

[Liverpool Rover]

I've seen the Namo tackle several times and still can't see what he did wrong. He went for the hip area, didn't fall on Isas legs and didn't seem to me to trap Isas foot under him. It's something that you see every game every week. 

[dboy]

2 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Dunbar is a Wigan fan. I have not looked at the tackle - given what I have been told the result of it was, I am not sure I want to see it - but I would have thought the rules should give some guidance as to 1) if this tackle broke the rules, and 2) the severity of the rule breach (possibly differentiating between accidental, careless, reckless and deliberate etc). That establishes the case to answer. Then, as to sentencing, I am assuming that the extent of the injury is a pertinent factor in the sentencing. The guidelines must cover these points. 

If you didn't know what to look for, you'd describe it as innocuous.

He went into Isa whilst he was in a vulnerable position, for some reason led in with a knee, which contacted Isa's ankle.

It's poor technique, resulting in foul contact.

It is absolutely the injury that's led to the severity of the ban.

[Barry Badrinath]

22 hours ago, Dave T said:

"Dangerous Contact - Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player."

This is the charge and I think the wording does cover this incident. (red words to be excluded as irrelevant)

this is i why i questioned it on the other page, i wouldn't have though that last bit applied, that for me is someone say, putting the point of their elbow or knee on someones body part to or pressing down on a muscle (see a bicep or calf slicer in bjj) to actively harm someone.

 

Next time we get a knee on knee clash is the person who comes off better in line for a suspension?

[Barry Badrinath]

17 hours ago, dkw said:

Because youve just randomly made up a completely different incident to defend your point of view, which is a complete waste of time and utter nonsense.

its bizarre how severely dboy is actually taking this,its almost gledhill levels of furiousness.

[dboy]

3 hours ago, Barry Badrinath said:

its bizarre how severely dboy is actually taking this,its almost gledhill levels of furiousness.

Odd take.

I haven't given an opinion, impassioned or otherwise, on any aspect of the incident.

I have considered only the facts of how the disciplinary has worked.

Only those who don't understand process have shown misguided "fury", as you put it.

Don't ever liken me to Gledhill again - that's not nice.

[Click]

26 minutes ago, dboy said:

Odd take.

I haven't given an opinion, impassioned or otherwise, on any aspect of the incident.

I have considered only the facts of how the disciplinary has worked.

Only those who don't understand process have shown misguided "fury", as you put it.

Don't ever liken me to Gledhill again - that's not nice.

How can you say you have only considered the facts and haven't given an opinion? 

The last 3/4 pages is you debating with others about YOUR opinion 

For someone who doesn't want to be likened to Gledhill you are not working hard to get away from some of the things he does.

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, Click said:

How can you say you have only considered the facts and haven't given an opinion? 

The last 3/4 pages is you debating with others about YOUR opinion 

For someone who doesn't want to be likened to Gledhill you are not working hard to get away from some of the things he does.

He also hasn’t actually denied that he is Gledhill

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, Click said:

How can you say you have only considered the facts and haven't given an opinion? 

It's the rules of the Internet.  It's not your opinion if you give your opinion and then state it is an 'absolute fact' afterwards.  Your opinions magically turn into facts.

[dboy]

15 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It's the rules of the Internet.  It's not your opinion if you give your opinion and then state it is an 'absolute fact' afterwards.  Your opinions magically turn into facts.

Tell me what I've said that isn't factual please.

 

[dboy]

And before you do, read the case adjudication...it confirms everything I have said about the incident, the process and the outcomes.

[The Blues Ox]

21 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

I've seen the Namo tackle several times and still can't see what he did wrong. He went for the hip area, didn't fall on Isas legs and didn't seem to me to trap Isas foot under him. It's something that you see every game every week. 

Agreed, Ive watched it a lot too and have the same opinion. It's unfortunate that a player has come out of it with a very bad injury but I'm struggling to see the foul play. Contact is high enough and defenders are taught to get tight in to the attacker with their lead leg and the technique in the video does not look great but I still don't think it is a reason to ban someone. 

Interesting to hear that Cas defense for this is going to be their player taking a head knock just before this and saying he remembers the contact but not much after it. I can't see that helping their case, I think they would have done better if their player could fully explain his actions.

The worry is that you will see maybe 2 or 3 tackles similar to this in each game that go unpunished so what is the difference and will we be seeing a potential rule change.  interesting as well people quoting the twist, bend, or otherwise part of the rules but in the new tackle safe video put out by the RFL a couple of weeks back there is a lot of talk now about coaching players to lift a leg of a defender and a motion that certainly could be deemed twisting on the standing leg when the tackle is effected is going to happen with this most of the time.

[dboy]

Agree with just about all of that; most of it is not in question.

The offense really is clear though, however accidental, unfortunate, one-of-those things or not.

My OPINION is that it wasn't deliberate and that he's unfortunate with the length of the ban (which is down to the nature of the injury). 

But the process of review, charge, mitigation, sanction has been followed.

The irony for me is, I think Isa is a grub who's been getting away with it for years. Now there's an opinion!

[Click]

1 minute ago, dboy said:

Agree with just about all of that; most of it is not in question.

The offense really is clear though, however accidental, unfortunate, one-of-those things or not.

My OPINION is that it wasn't deliberate and that he's unfortunate with the length of the ban (which is down to the nature of the injury). 

But the process of review, charge, mitigation, sanction has been followed.

The irony for me is, I think Isa is a grub who's been getting away with it for years. Now there's an opinion!

Wow, that is at least 2 opinions in the same post, you really are moving up in the world

[Damien]

4 hours ago, Barry Badrinath said:

its bizarre how severely dboy is actually taking this,its almost gledhill levels of furiousness.

The dislike of Castleford in this Wakefield fan is strong. I strongly suspect if it was a Wakefield player things would be quite different.

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, Barry Badrinath said:

this is i why i questioned it on the other page, i wouldn't have though that last bit applied, that for me is someone say, putting the point of their elbow or knee on someones body part to or pressing down on a muscle (see a bicep or calf slicer in bjj) to actively harm someone.

 

Next time we get a knee on knee clash is the person who comes off better in line for a suspension?

I think the wording is vague enough to be able to be used, but I agree it isn't the best.

I don't think we need to worry too much about your last line. As has been called out here, this is an unusual ban, it isn't a common offence that we see bans for. Plus there is enough in the wording that caters for accidental clashes. 

I do think there was enough in this one that looked odd tbh, I don;t agree that it is a tackle we see regularly.

[phiggins]

20 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Interesting to hear that Cas defense for this is going to be their player taking a head knock just before this and saying he remembers the contact but not much after it. I can't see that helping their case, I think they would have done better if their player could fully explain his actions.

 

Doesn't that raise the question of why he was even on the field?

[Dave T]

So this appears to be the main issue here:

 

"Although SN’s initial point of contact was with WI’s thigh, his knee was in an unacceptable position as he was coming into contact and applying pressure to WI’s leg. In that way he was not in control of his actions. This was a reckless tackle and SN had failed to show an appropriate duty of care to his opponent in acting as he did."