The penalty was given for off side ??? which was a cop out or he would have had to sent him off.

but most peeps think the penalty was for a high tackle .

which i beleive it was not hihj . his head hit his chest

So using that logic you could have a team of two foot midgets who it would be impossible to tackle legally and therefore would win everything going, therefore making Super League a bigger farce than it is already.

Difficult to tackle yes, impossible to tackle no, not really, especially if every team had the same idea.

go watch soccer then

Would anybody care to update their views expressed in this thread in light of the "fair" headshot on Maurie last Friday?

That referees - from both sides of the globe - are being consistent.

They're consistently wrong IMO, but consistent none the less. Contact with the head, either with arm or shoulder, [ishould[/i be a penalty.

Nope. I still agree with what Mr Gilder put.



Bailey's could have been a penalty for an unintentional high tackle but nothing more. It was missed, like Gilmour's facial on Smith.

Have you changed your mind or do you think the incident was Maury's fault for being too tall/short or running in at the wrong angle?

Burrows as we all know is not very tall, and on occasions his technique is that when he runs at people he has a habit of ducking, which then results in taller people tackling him at the wrong point on his body. Maybe if he didnt duck he wouldnt get knocked out that often.

I'd hazard a guess that the opposite might apply.

Yes, that's right.

It's nothing to do with tacklers not observing their duty of care to a fellow professional at all, it's entirely his fault for being short.

Whose fault is it you're too dumb to spell his name correctly?

HE SHOULD WEAR headgear

From a man who's learnt by bitter experience

The hit against Manly was more to do with the shocking pass to him than anyones duty of care he was just monstered as he didn't have time to brace for impact as he didn't know it was coming.

Burrow gets laid out just as much if not more when he is the tackler not the ball carrier which is more down to poor technique on his part - both incidents against Saints where down to his head being in the wrong place when attempting to tackle.

i love him, he keeps getting back up and going straight for the biggest players legs - i hope Super League and more for his safety he doesn't get too hurt doing it.

heart of a lion he gives his all.

Don’t know if this has be said already as I can’t be d reading all ten pages but what I have noticed in both the Saints and Warrington games is players running the ball into Wee Rob and then ducking or at least lowering their centre of gravity.

RB isn’t big enough to attack the ball when tackling so he uses himself as a fulcrum and his opponent’s weight and momentum to upturn them.

Rob ALWAYS goes in low.

When he got KO’d at Knowsley it was because Long bent forward into the tackle and prevented Burrow from tackling his legs.

I noticed the same tactic used by Mozza when running at Rob, traditionally Morley runs upright but seemed to specifically lean forward when up against Burrow.

There’s nothing wrong with this at all, you play to your opponents weaknesses but I think that coaches have finally got Robs tackling technique sussed and unless he readdresses his defensive methods he may find himself continually getting poleaxed.

Burrow didn't get knocked out I don't think. The problem was caused by Long leading with the forearm, and it connecting with his collar bone, thats why he was able to come back on later. Doubt he would have if he was knocked out

The "Penalty" was for OFFSIDE

Watch the game - it WAS high though !

If it was for offside it was given in completely the wrong place, so all things being equal I'd say it was for a high tackle.

I still think we need to rest him a bit more. Does he really need to play the full 80 minutes?

Yes I'm afraid he does, just like every other number 7 in the game.