Disciplinary at it again.

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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."

Will we see other players penalised and banned for their knee's being in an unacceptable position I wonder.

[Dave T]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Will we see other players penalised and banned for their knee's being in an unacceptable position I wonder.

I don't see why we wouldn't, unless you think there is some victimisation going on?

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't see why we wouldn't, unless you think there is some victimisation going on?

Not at all, just that I am in my 5th decade of watching Rugby League and I didn't know that a knee being in an unacceptable position was a foul.

[Dunbar]

Reading through the minutes, the ‘prosecution’ said that the tackle was akin to a 'drop tackle' although it wasn't a drop tackle and that Namo made legal initial contact but then did not moderate his contact thereafter in order to prevent the injury and that his knee was in an unacceptable position.

He has been banned for applying the pressure with his knee to Isa’s ankle and essentially not stopping himself from applying pressure to the ankle with his knee which was in an ‘unacceptable position’ while he was making what was otherwise a legitimate tackle.

But once again, I go back to the first principle – what law of the game has Namo broken with this tackle?

In essence, he has been banned for injuring Isa, not for breaking the laws of the game.  That is a really strange position for our game to be in.

[Dave T]

31 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Not at all, just that I am in my 5th decade of watching Rugby League and I didn't know that a knee being in an unacceptable position was a foul.

aye, to be fair though, we see all sorts of bans/penalties for things that wouldn't have been in previous years/decades. 

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Reading through the minutes, the ‘prosecution’ said that the tackle was akin to a 'drop tackle' although it wasn't a drop tackle and that Namo made legal initial contact but then did not moderate his contact thereafter in order to prevent the injury and that his knee was in an unacceptable position.

He has been banned for applying the pressure with his knee to Isa’s ankle and essentially not stopping himself from applying pressure to the ankle with his knee which was in an ‘unacceptable position’ while he was making what was otherwise a legitimate tackle.

But once again, I go back to the first principle – what law of the game has Namo broken with this tackle?

In essence, he has been banned for injuring Isa, not for breaking the laws of the game.  That is a really strange position for our game to be in.

I'm not sure why you keep asking that question. It is answered quite clearly in the charge. I understand you not agreeing with it and feeling it was an accident, but the charge is very clear.

 

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure why you keep asking that question. It is answered quite clearly in the charge. I understand you not agreeing with it and feeling it was an accident, but the charge is very clear.

 

I guess.

But I feel for players (forwards in particular, but I am bias) that play one of the fastest and hardest physical sports in the world for 80 minutes with players charging into each other and enduring tackles that have the force of a car crash... and then get banned for having their knee in an unacceptable position when making an otherwise legitimate tackle.

 

[dboy]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

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."

Fact.

[dboy]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

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

I guess all the MRP were Wakey fans as well then?

It's nothing to with it being a Cas player - I could not care less about which club he plays for!

[dboy]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

In essence, he has been banned for injuring Isa, not for breaking the laws of the game.  That is a really strange position for our game to be in.

He broke the LftG by dangerous contact on Isa's ankle joint. It says so in the charge and in the adjudication.

The length of the ban is certainly affected by the injury, being at the top of the grading outcome.

Have you read the adjudication? It clearly lays out the considerations of the matter - for and against.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

"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."

I can't get my head around this explanation from the MRP, when only a couple of weeks ago a ball carrier ran into an opponent at speed with a raised elbow in an unacceptable position which could only have been a premeditated effort to cause injury in a way he was in control of his actions he saw the defender stood in front of him and failed to show an appropriate duty of care to his opponent in acting as he did, I have used the MRP's wording and applied it the way in my opinion the raised elbow incident should have been dealt with, how the MRP could let that go with no further action and find the fault that they have done with this is beyond belief.

[Dunbar]

19 minutes ago, dboy said:

He broke the LftG by dangerous contact on Isa's ankle joint. It says so in the charge and in the adjudication.

The length of the ban is certainly affected by the injury, being at the top of the grading outcome.

Have you read the adjudication? It clearly lays out the considerations of the matter - for and against.

Yes, I have read it several times.  And they considered the position of Namo's knee to be unacceptable while executing the tackle and therefore recklessly causing the injury to Isa.

My point, which I have made several times, is whether we will see any referrals and bans for any other player having his knee in the position that Namo had but doesn’t either 1) result in the contact with the ankle of the tackled player or 2) contacts the tackled players ankle but does not cause injury.

If neither of these cases come about and a player’s knee makes contact the ankle of a player that he tackles and there is no penalty, charge or ban, then Namo has been banned for the injury.

My question to you is – if a tackler contacts a players ankle with his knee moving forward while executing an otherwise legal tackle, is that going to be called a foul?

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I guess.

But I feel for players (forwards in particular, but I am bias) that play one of the fastest and hardest physical sports in the world for 80 minutes with players charging into each other and enduring tackles that have the force of a car crash... and then get banned for having their knee in an unacceptable position when making an otherwise legitimate tackle.

 

I'm not sure we can break the tackle down I to two parts, the legal part and the illegal part. 

[Dave T]

37 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, I have read it several times.  And they considered the position of Namo's knee to be unacceptable while executing the tackle and therefore recklessly causing the injury to Isa.

My point, which I have made several times, is whether we will see any referrals and bans for any other player having his knee in the position that Namo had but doesn’t either 1) result in the contact with the ankle of the tackled player or 2) contacts the tackled players ankle but does not cause injury.

If neither of these cases come about and a player’s knee makes contact the ankle of a player that he tackles and there is no penalty, charge or ban, then Namo has been banned for the injury.

My question to you is – if a tackler contacts a players ankle with his knee moving forward while executing an otherwise legal tackle, is that going to be called a foul?

There is no reason to think they won't ban others. They are banning players left right and centre when there is no injury. 

Your last para. The answer is no. Accidents will happen - however if when making a tackle you have your leg in an unnatural position that makes it dangerous then you will be pulled for it. 

That's all that's happened here, there is nothing more profound or controversial than that. It's a dangerous tackle because of where the tackler put his knee. You think it was accidental, I can understand that view, others, including the MRP believe it was reckless and dangerous. 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

There is no reason to think they won't ban others. They are banning players left right and centre when there is no injury. 

Your last para. The answer is no. Accidents will happen - however if when making a tackle you have your leg in an unnatural position that makes it dangerous then you will be pulled for it. 

That's all that's happened here, there is nothing more profound or controversial than that. It's a dangerous tackle because of where the tackler put his knee. You think it was accidental, I can understand that view, others, including the MRP believe it was reckless and dangerous. 

There was nothing in the charge or the decision of the panel that stated that his leg was in an unnatural position.

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

There was nothing in the charge or the decision of the panel that stated that his leg was in an unnatural position.

That is my description. For the type of tackle he was completing, there isn't really a reason your knee should be anywhere near the player. 

I've been casually watching some matches to try and find 3rd man tackles to compare, and firstky, it's quite difficult as many don't attempt the type of tackle he made, but there was one by Daryl Clarke after 4m30 in the game the other day, and his technique was very different. His legs go nowhere near the ball carrier. That's what I mean by unnatural, if you are throwing your shoulder at the ball carrier your knees should be clear really. It wasn't orthodox. 

Edited April 18 by Dave T

[dboy]

"...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. "

 

Are you going to base your argument on the difference between unnatural and unacceptable?

Whatever the charge description was, it's not a natural tackling style to have your knee in contact, when you've bent down and made initial contact with your shoulder.

The feet would be behind the upper body, driving the upper body into the contact. 5 year-olds are taught that.

[Dunbar]

13 minutes ago, dboy said:

"...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. "

 

Are you going to base your argument on the difference between unnatural and unacceptable?

Whatever the charge description was, it's not a natural tackling style to have your knee in contact, when you've bent down and made initial contact with your shoulder.

The feet would be behind the upper body, driving the upper body into the contact. 5 year-olds are taught that.

Sorry, are you arguing that there is no difference between unnatural and unacceptable?

A bit rich from someone who has asked me whether "I have read the adjudication? It clearly lays out the considerations of the matter"... yet now seems to want to defend the use of a word that wasn't included in any part of the adjudication. 

[Dunbar]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That is my description. For the type of tackle he was completing, there isn't really a reason your knee should be anywhere near the player. 

I've been casually watching some matches to try and find 3rd man tackles to compare, and firstky, it's quite difficult as many don't attempt the type of tackle he made, but there was one by Daryl Clarke after 4m30 in the game the other day, and his technique was very different. His legs go nowhere near the ball carrier. That's what I mean by unnatural, if you are throwing your shoulder at the ball carrier your knees should be clear really. It wasn't orthodox. 

Interestingly, in the minutes of the meeting, the 'unacceptable' position of the knee is only mentioned by the representative of the Match Review Panel (the prosecution in effect).

The tribunal simply state in their ruling that AN’s initial contact was not unfair, and in the hip/thigh area, he then continued onwards into WI and in going then to the ground he came down on top of WI thereby making the heavy and objectionable contact with the back of WI’s ankle that caused the very serious injury.

So, they are not saying his leg was in an unacceptable (or unnatural) position, simply that he recklessly came down on Isa's ankle.

In some ways this makes the whole discussion easier as they say he could of and should of avoided landing on Isa's ankle causing the damage. 

But in other ways it complicates matters as the ruling is that the tackle was fair but he subsequently landed on Isa and caused pressure.  I mean how many tackles in Rugby League does that describe!

[wasginger]

How many players that go into a tackle, think oh I must get my body position right ?

[dboy]

So which bit of "thereby making the heavy and objectionable contact with the back of WI’s ankle that caused the very serious injury." are you struggling with.

At the end of the day you aren't arguing that I am wrong, you're saying the MRP are wrong.

Clearly they are not.

Someone said earlier "if there had been no injury, it wouldn't been noticed". I agree that's likely.

Many say it's an accident. I agree that's likely.

You, for example, have said "there'll be similar tackles all the time". We don't see players bringing knees through in front of their bodies in shoulder tackles, but I understand what you mean by seeing "similar" tackles. 

None of that changes the facts of the incident.

Namo got it wrong with crappy technique. He got unlucky with the nature of the outcome.

 

[dboy]

9 minutes ago, wasginger said:

How many players that go into a tackle, think oh I must get my body position right ?

Given that there are perhaps 600 tackles per game, and incidents like this are so rare, I'd say all of them.

They certainly should be - it's how they're coached.

You sound like Craig Lingard saying Namo wasn't thinking straight in the tackle because his head was knocked by his own player.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, dboy said:

So which bit of "thereby making the heavy and objectionable contact with the back of WI’s ankle that caused the very serious injury." are you struggling with.

At the end of the day you aren't arguing that I am wrong, you're saying the MRP are wrong.

Clearly they are not.

Someone said earlier "if there had been no injury, it wouldn't been noticed". I agree that's likely.

Many say it's an accident. I agree that's likely.

You, for example, have said "there'll be similar tackles all the time". We don't see players bringing knees through in front of their bodies in shoulder tackles, but I understand what you mean by seeing "similar" tackles. 

None of that changes the facts of the incident.

Namo got it wrong with crappy technique. He got unlucky with the nature of the outcome.

 

I assume this was directed at me even though I wasn't quoted.

I have said all along that I accept the judgment on the panel (and now the tribunal).

I have simply pointed out and maintain a few important points (in my eyes anyway).

1. They considered it reckless and so do you.  I considered it accidental, an important difference.

The tribunal came to a decision and i respect that decision but I am allowed to disagree with it.

2.  What the tribunal is saying In their decision is that the initial tackle was fair but he then made heavy and objectionable contact with the tackled player.  And this was not with an arm or hand but a knee.  If landing on a player with the knee after a tackle is now a foul then will we see this consistently punished.

3. If there was no injury, there was absolutely no way that we would have seen or mentioned that tackle ever again.  So it is the injury that has led to the ban.

[dboy]

I didn't quote you because I replied directly to your post (though someone replied in between, before I submitted).

1.  Accidental/deliberate does not matter in respect of whether it is a foul or not! An accidental foul is still a foul. It only matters in respect of the sanction.

2. When have we ever had this thing you call "consistency"?

3. I agree that that is likely it would have been missed without the injury (in our opinions), but the injury is relevant to the severity of the sanction.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, dboy said:

I didn't quote you because I replied directly to your post (though someone replied in between, before I submitted).

1.  Accidental/deliberate does not matter in respect of whether it is a foul or not! An accidental foul is still a foul. It only matters in respect of the sanction.

2. When have we ever had this thing you call "consistency"?

3. I agree that that is likely it would have been missed without the injury (in our opinions), but the injury is relevant to the severity of the sanction.

This is an interesting point.  And when we look at high shots, that is certainly the case... ad high shot is a foul even if it is accidental.

But here, we are talking about pressure on a player during a tackle.  I think that situation can absolutely be accidental as the contact with a players ankle is not in itself a foul (especially as there is no twisting motion involved).

There will be many tackles where a players ankle has pressure applied to it... but not all are fouls.