Disciplinary at it again.

[Dunbar]

Anyway, I think we have pretty much said all we can on this one.  Thanks to @Dave T and @dboy for an interesting and good natured discussion.

[dboy]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

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.

You can't tackle someone's ankle with your knee.

Also, you can't separate these fine points from the overall mechanics of Namo's tackle.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

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!

I don't want to get too technical we have different views of the tackle, which is fair enough, but I would add that you misrepresent what has been said here in your last para. They don't say the tackle was fair, they say initial contact was not unfair. 

[dkw]

I still don't see the unnatural, unacceptable or however you want yo describe it, he's absolutely not led with the knee, it's just part of his completely natural body position for a tackle like that. I get that you maybe cant claim an accident as mitigation at times, but accidents on a pitch do and will happen, its just the nature of the game. It opens up a can of worms for me, will the Disciplinary now be expected to rule on all accidental contact, or just ones leading to injuries?

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't want to get too technical we have different views of the tackle, which is fair enough, but I would add that you misrepresent what has been said here in your last para. They don't say the tackle was fair, they say initial contact was not unfair. 

Yes, fair enough - initial contact was fair is what I should have said.  The 'subsequently' I mentioned is the part that was deemed unfair.  But, as you said before, it was all one tackle so I did misrepresent that.

[Dave T]

53 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, fair enough - initial contact was fair is what I should have said.  The 'subsequently' I mentioned is the part that was deemed unfair.  But, as you said before, it was all one tackle so I did misrepresent that.

I can see why people have landed on this being an accident, as per my first viewing I was a bit split, but my general viewpoint is that duty of care is with the tackler and when something looks odd, AND it injures a player, I think it's a tough defence. 

But, as I say, I can understand alternate viewpoints on this one. I think it's like the Leigh ones recently. 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I think it's like the Leigh ones recently. 

Just when we were putting the conversation to bed, you go and light the blue touch paper.

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Just when we were putting the conversation to bed, you go and light the blue touch paper.

Not from me, like you on this thread Dunny I have put the Asiata alleged infringements to bed.

[Barry Badrinath]

On 16/04/2024 at 20:00, Dunbar said:

Didn't want to start a new thread but Sylvestor Namo has received 5 matches for his tackle that injured Isa in the Cas Wigan game.

For the life of me, I can't see the reason.  A horrible and unlucky outcome but surely this is a tackle we see a hundred time a game with contact around the hip of Isa.

 

Has this tweet been taken down now? It's not visible in the post and I can't find it on twitter 

[wasginger]

On 18/04/2024 at 18:40, dboy said:

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.

I'm not so sure on your thinking dboy. Yes players are trained to tackle in a certain technique, and that does change as player welfare is concerned, but once the game starts a player should be focused on his following team instructions. So in the case of Namo, it wasn't even classed as an illegal tackle, it's because the tackled player ended up with a serious injury. Is this now going to be the precedent for players getting injured even by accident. That the tackler must be guilty of deliberately injuring another player, therefore he gets a ban. I'm not sure we're heading in the right direction with this. Players will always get injured. 

[Harry Stottle]

14 hours ago, wasginger said:

I'm not so sure on your thinking dboy. Yes players are trained to tackle in a certain technique, and that does change as player welfare is concerned, but once the game starts a player should be focused on his following team instructions. So in the case of Namo, it wasn't even classed as an illegal tackle, it's because the tackled player ended up with a serious injury. Is this now going to be the precedent for players getting injured even by accident. That the tackler must be guilty of deliberately injuring another player, therefore he gets a ban. I'm not sure we're heading in the right direction with this. Players will always get injured. 

Yes seemingly the attitude as been set by the MRP, and there have been a few this season that the MRP will have to look back on their own 'Persuasive Precedents' which should influence their reasoning on future likewise events accuring and their deliberation.

[Dave T]

16 hours ago, wasginger said:

I'm not so sure on your thinking dboy. Yes players are trained to tackle in a certain technique, and that does change as player welfare is concerned, but once the game starts a player should be focused on his following team instructions. So in the case of Namo, it wasn't even classed as an illegal tackle, it's because the tackled player ended up with a serious injury. Is this now going to be the precedent for players getting injured even by accident. That the tackler must be guilty of deliberately injuring another player, therefore he gets a ban. I'm not sure we're heading in the right direction with this. Players will always get injured. 

It is an illegal tackle, it just wasn't picked up live. 

[Dave T]

16 hours ago, wasginger said:

I'm not so sure on your thinking dboy. Yes players are trained to tackle in a certain technique, and that does change as player welfare is concerned, but once the game starts a player should be focused on his following team instructions. So in the case of Namo, it wasn't even classed as an illegal tackle, it's because the tackled player ended up with a serious injury. Is this now going to be the precedent for players getting injured even by accident. That the tackler must be guilty of deliberately injuring another player, therefore he gets a ban. I'm not sure we're heading in the right direction with this. Players will always get injured. 

You are ignoring all the evidence that shows players getting injured and the tackler not being punished. 

There is nothing more to this than it being deemed illegal and him being punished for it. 

[Dunbar]

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It is an illegal tackle, it just wasn't picked up live. 

I think the point that everyone is making is that the tackle didn't break any of the laws of the game with the exception of "applying pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player." (the charge).

I accept this is an illegal tackle but the point is that this category of illegal is open to a very wide interpretation. 

As the match review panel argued,  "initial contact was not illegitimate but he argued that AN did not moderate his contact thereafter in order to prevent the injury."

And the tribunal concluded that "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."

What people are concerned about is, couldn't any injury from a tackle result in a charge for a player that didn't moderate his contact to prevent the injury if the initial contact was fair?

I know these things have to be taken on a case my case basis but I don't like the precedent. 

[Dave T]

44 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I think the point that everyone is making is that the tackle didn't break any of the laws of the game with the exception of "applying pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player." (the charge).

I accept this is an illegal tackle but the point is that this category of illegal is open to a very wide interpretation. 

 

I struggle to follow this. 

You say the tackle doesn't break any laws and then call it illegal. 

We already discussed the irrelevance of initial contact being legal. He wasn't charged for the initial contact. 

[Dunbar]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I struggle to follow this. 

You say the tackle doesn't break any laws and then call it illegal. 

We already discussed the irrelevance of initial contact being legal. He wasn't charged for the initial contact. 

I will simplify my argument.

The foul was applying pressure with his knee to the ankle of ISA.  It is a charge which is a subset of the law "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."

My view on the law above is that it was written to cover the deliberate twisting of a knee, ankle, arm of a player, a kind of cover all that isn't included in the chicken wing or other pressure fouls.

It has been used here to charge a player for landing on top of another with his knee forcing pressure on the ankle.  There was no other action that was illegal, just landing on a players ankle with his knee.

My point is that any tackle where a player lands on another and causes injury can fall into this category.

To put it even more simply - it is a foul because there was an injury (and the defender didn't prevent the injury), not a foul that caused an injury.

Edited April 20 by Dunbar

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You say the tackle doesn't break any laws and then call it illegal. 

 

And just on this part - I am saying it was judged to be a foul, but as I think I have made clear, I don't agree with that judgement.

[Dave T]

37 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I will simplify my argument.

The foul was applying pressure with his knee to the ankle of ISA.  It is a charge which is a subset of the law "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."

My view on the law above is that it was written to cover the deliberate twisting of a knee, ankle, arm of a player, a kind of cover all that isn't included in the chicken wing or other pressure fouls.

It has been used here to charge a player for landing on top of another with his knee forcing pressure on the ankle.  There was no other action that was illegal, just landing on a players ankle with his knee.

My point is that any tackle where a player lands on another and causes injury can fall into this category.

To put it even more simply - it is a foul because there was an injury (and the defender didn't prevent the injury), not a foul that caused an injury.

"Otherwise apply pressure..." is a catch-all that is sensible to include in things like this to avoid being overly-prescriptive. I'm not sure there is an issue in this charge being used as it was. 

It really is simple. You don't think it was a foul, I do. That's perfectly fine and a valid view, but the rest of this is noise. 

[Dunbar]

15 minutes ago, Dave T said:

"Otherwise apply pressure..." is a catch-all that is sensible to include in things like this to avoid being overly-prescriptive. I'm not sure there is an issue in this charge being used as it was. 

It really is simple. You don't think it was a foul, I do. That's perfectly fine and a valid view, but the rest of this is noise. 

I agree with the last paragraph but I am not as comfortable as you seem to be with a catch all 'otherwise apply pressure'.  Seems to me that describes every single tackle in Rugby League.

I tell ya, it's the Rugby League deep state at work!

 

[Exiled Wiganer]

37 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I agree with the last paragraph but I am not as comfortable as you seem to be with a catch all 'otherwise apply pressure'.  Seems to me that describes every single tackle in Rugby League.

I tell ya, it's the Rugby League deep state at work!

 

I am not sure I agree. When you make a tackle, you occasionally find yourself in a position when you are applying pressure in a way likely to cause injury. Not because the tackle was a standard foul, but because of the movement of other people involved. And then you can release, or do nothing, or apply greater force. I think this is what the rule is trying to pick up. It frequently happen, but in most cases people move or release the pressure. It might be cumbersome wording, but I think the idea is sound, having been in that position as tackler and tackled on many occasions. 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I am not sure I agree. When you make a tackle, you occasionally find yourself in a position when you are applying pressure in a way likely to cause injury. Not because the tackle was a standard foul, but because of the movement of other people involved. And then you can release, or do nothing, or apply greater force. I think this is what the rule is trying to pick up. It frequently happen, but in most cases people move or release the pressure. It might be cumbersome wording, but I think the idea is sound, having been in that position as tackler and tackled on many occasions. 

And do you think this incident falls into that description?

[Exiled Wiganer]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

And do you think this incident falls into that description?

I mentioned above that, given the horrific outcome, which may end Isa’s career, I would rather not re watch it, as that feels ghoulish. I was just thinking about the “foul/not foul” question in the abstract, by reference to my own experience. 

[Dunbar]

Just now, Exiled Wiganer said:

I mentioned above that, given the horrific outcome, which may end Isa’s career, I would rather not re watch it, as that feels ghoulish. I was just thinking about the “foul/not foul” question in the abstract, by reference to my own experience. 

Fair enough.

I can't remember injuring anyone but I remember being injured and none of them were fouls... but a couple of them certainly applied enough pressure to injure me.  I never thought about whether they should have moderated their contact after in order to prevent the injury.

[Barry Badrinath]

Going round in circles here lads

[Dunbar]

Just now, Barry Badrinath said:

Going round in circles here lads

Indeed. But I find the discussion interesting.