The rule book IIRC makes no mention of the position of tackled players head but it does presume it should remain attached to his shoulders ....

I love the way you prefer unfounded personal insults to reasoned debate on here.

What if a player slips as he approaches the tackler and bangs his head on the tackler's knee as he falls? By your logic the tackler should be sent off for kneeing the ball carrier in the head.

Feel free to just tell me I'm thick again rather than actually considering the point I'm making.

By your logic though if your head drops below a certain height then it's okay for the person tackling you to smash it with any part of his body (knee, fist, forearm etc.). If a player falls on the ground is it okay to kick him in the head?

The same atitude seems to apply to Burrow. Just because his head is where most people's chest is that apparantly means he's too short to tackle legally.

If the runner bangs his head on a tacklers knee then it's accidental (unless the player with the ball is some sort of masochist). If the tackler actively knees the player in the head then it would indeed be a sending off offence.

Watmough's tackle was around the head. Burrow may have slipped and it may not have been Watmough's fault that he caught him high but it's still a foul - regardless of whether it was intentional.

You're thick.

You've been told, on several occasions ,that a tackle above the shoulders is illegal. I've asked you a question on this very thread about where it says the ball carriers height or body position is relevant. You've failed to answer.

Don't try and pretend you're attempting to engage in genuine debate. To do that you would have to consider the points being made by others and respond to them. You're just repeating, ad nauseum, the same old stuff that we've all answered.

Which means you're either being deliberately obtuse or you're thick.

I did try and engage you in proper discussion on the subject but you weren't interested.

so whatmough is too blame for leeds loseing

I would argue that he is, at least partly. although more by virtue of his all-round performance than his challenge on Burrow.

I blame all the Manly players for Leeds losing.

I blame no-one.......... except Ganson naturally.

Who said that?

As an aside if dimensions of players are taken into account when deciding if a tackle is legal or not may I suggest that the spear tackle against Cunningham wasn't illegal as he is too fat?

Thank you



I don't where it says it, probably somewhere near the section where it says the the player's body position isn't relevant, i.e. the body position isn't mentioned, hence the reason for a debate. Or, in your case, for repeatedly saying "You're thick" instead.



I am considering the points made by others, you are refusing to consider the points I'm making. I know that a head high tackle is illegal, I'm just trying to raise the subject of what the ruling should be when the impact with the head is caused by the tackled player ducking or falling rather than the tackler's technique or intent. But again, please just feel free to say "You're thick" instead of thinking about it and responding.



Thanks again, I'm going to start believing you soon.



No you didn't. I'm the one trying to stick to the subject, you're the one just hurling abuse.

The rule book is not up for debate. You've been told what the rules are. Do you think the RFL will amend them retrospectively just because some troll disputes them on here?

I'm with Gareth, you're thick.

It's stil a penalty for a high tackle. The tackler has still made contact with the head of the opponent, albeit not intentionally. Bit like tackles where the arm bounces up off the ball and strikes the head.

I'd be surprised if it merited anything more given the predominantly accidental nature of the contact, but it should still be penalised. AFAIK there's nothing in the laws about where the tackler intended the contact to be, just where it was.

Apologies. Its' just that a lot of thickos post on here and it can become a little tiresome.

I know I should try harder and be more patient.

I appreciate you're not a regular thicko to these parts so I should've given the benefit of the doubt to you.

Anyway, Andy Gilder ha succinctly stated the point. Feel free to address it. Its' a point that has been made repeatedly throughout the thread and ignored by you but hey ho.

Blame Peacock for Burrow geting knocked out me Granny would have sent a quicker pass out.

I'm amazed that a player of Watmough's talent couldn't manage to tackle legally.

I've only just managed to view the tackle from a few different angles. My take on it was that it was a high tackle. Hence penalty. I don't believe it was done with any intent, and I think a big, legal, ball-and-all hit was the intention. He got it wrong, something for which I understand he later apologised to the player concerned. It merited a penalty for an illegal high tackle and no further action in my opinion.

And not only in your opinion. It's one that has been expressed consistently throughout this thread already.

Nicely summed up and welcome to the party.

Thanks. Sorry I was a bit late getting here. Traffic was a bitch. As was not having Sky.

You sure you haven't just summarised all my points from this thread.



Brings it all together nicely and just in the nick of time. Another game coming up an all.

The little influential halfback will once again be wearing Rhinos colours as he is back for the Wire game this Sunday.

Burrows problem is his size, he scoots and players have difficulty getting down so low to tackle him because he is so tiny. Maybe he should invest in a pair of platform boots.

Its NOT his problem....



There is no rule that says you must be 6ft tall....but there is one against striking opponents above the shoulder....



deliberate or not.

if he was not knocked out . there would have been no penalty