Read the RFL report, they acknowledge everyone kicks out and think it should stop, they cant ban someone when in the past they have done nothng about it, particularly when it was accidental contact by a player who has an excellent disciplinary record AND the only ban he had before was very harsh

no one has been banned before, senior wasnt banned, that is consistent which is what you ask

to be honest you are contradicting yourself so much it's embarassing

Did that big-chinned drug fiend get done when he speared Disko that time? I can't remember!

Exactly. Spot on.

It's part and parcel of a tough game.

You can see all the impact injuries that easily backs that point up.

Yes, IIRC he got two matches. That challenge was off the ball though so more dangerous than the Coley one.

There was some controversy when Wigan tried to use pre-season friendlies to clear the ban (my memory is a bit vague about it) I think he may have missed one competitive fixture in the end.

I'll stand to be corrected though.

Whilst I think you meant "lose", yes, wholly possible. A kick to the head can cause many serious injuries, including to the neck as the head is used as a lever on the joint.



I'll come to the first bit in a sec, the second bit is the very least that should happen.



And nowhere have I said that was the right decision, either. So, yes, a dangerous precedent HAS been set, seemingly many times.



NFA = No further action.

My question is, and this is returning to Wheels' first point... how much worse can a kick to the head actually possibly be before the 1 game ban "standard" is reached? Does someone actually have to lose an eye / get their nose-bone smashed into their brain / kicked in the temple / have their windpipe crushed / miss 3 weeks through concussion before the 1 game ban is employed?

You can be banned more for a "careless" high tackle, why so lenient on a "careless" kick to the head?



See the last point I made. Blindness in one eye is one of the [iless[/i serious things that could actually happen.



An extraordinarily one-sided point of view. Players don't deliberately perform spear tackles because of the sanctions, players don't deliberately perform high-tackles because of the sanctions, therefore players shouldn't kick out because of the sanctions. Catching a finger in the eye or clashing heads can be accepted as an accident. Kicking out in the tackle can only be classed as careless, just like the above forms of tackle. The sanctions are inadequate.



They changed the rules for grapple tackles, so why can't they for kicking out?

Whilst a serious injury can occur from a spear tackle, injuries just as serious OR WORSE can occur from being kicked in the head. The difference is there's also the high probability of "Less serious" (but still pretty serious) injuries such as concussion, as a result yes, kicking out in the tackle is overall MORE dangerous than a spear. A player in a spear tackle would be desperately unlucky to receive a serious injury, a player getting kicked in the head is almost guaranteed to be injured in some way.

[i"The second most common head injury is concussion, caused by a blow to the head. If this occurs, the player should be removed from the competition immediately and should not be left unsupervised. Always seek medical advice and evaluation.

Concussion can be a serious injury and the International Rugby Board (IRB) rules state that any player who has suffered concussion can not participate in any match or training session for a minimum of three weeks and they need to be declared fit following a thorough medical examination before being allowed back to participate again."[/i

Put simply, something needs to be done, just as it was for grapple tackles. It's a serious offence, and as Cummings said, he should have been sin-binned at the time. What were the other bans this week for? Leading with the arm and a dangerous throw? I take it all back, getting kicked in the head is SO much better (!)

I mean come on, people. Get real.

Thats fine, I do agree and would not of been upset if Senior was banned.

I replied when you said [i"It deserved at least one match, and sets a dangerous precedent".[/i

It just made you sound a little like one of the lopsided mock outrage brigade on cherry and white, but that could just be a typo.

I would expect the rfl to raise the charge on kicking from now.

You still droaning on.

Get a grip love.

I thought it was an excellent, well reasoned post actually, and I agree 100% with what Fishsta wrote.

Good retort to it though, well done.

Of course you did.

Lefty alert.

Safe. I voted Tory too.

Your whole argument is based on the fact that nothing has been done about it before. Which is 'embarassing' really.
As someones just said, does it take a really serious injury for something to be done? His previous disciplinary record should have nothing to do with it, he did something every player nows they shouldn't do and whilst he didn't mean to injure anybody, waving your legs around when there's obviousley others players very close is very careless and dangerous. I don't see where i've contradicted myself at all, you've just misunderstood what i said, by consistency i meant over giving out bans for things which were less serious etc.

So while ever Wigan players are doing it and not getting suspended its OK but as soon as a nasty Leeds player does it sanctions need to be brought in?

Quite, I am absolutely sick of Wigan fans making out that their fans and players are 'whiter than white'.

Senior kicked out in a tackle but intentional, I don't think so. As McClennan pointed out, he is actually facing the other way. He didn't think, 'oh, I know, there's Joel Tomkins, I'll kick him in the face'. Please.
And, Lee Smith. Well, he celebrated where he scored the try. There are Rhinos fans that stand in the Western terrace and what did you expect him to do? Wigan would have done exactly the same had they scored in front of the Carnegie stand. And the Rhinos fans would have reacted in a very similar way to the Wigan fans (although I think a lunchbox might have been to far). But do not pretend that he stood on a wall (he didn't). No-one's pretending that Wigan have to feel happy about what happened. I know Wigan fans would like the entire Rhinos team to be up in front of the RFL for 'incitement' but as they haven't even passed comment, I can't see it. Let it go.

And as for Coley. As many have said, it's not about where Delaney ended up, it's what could have happened. And I don't think peading 'not guilty' at the disciplinary did him any favours either.

i've said i thought Coley deserved to be banned for what he did, it's not about the player that did it, i'm saying maybe something needs to be done before a more serious injury occurs, becuase this time was just lucky.

I was actually talking about Mathers kicking Burrow and Sam Tomkins kicking a Wakefield player not Coley. I think the Coley decision was right based on the Mounis decision the previous week and the Senior one was correct based on the Mathers and Tomkins precedents.

I know, but your comment sounded as though i was just saying it because it was a leeds player, which i wasn't, Senior hasn't been banned this time, that's done. But maybe something should be done before something worse happens. Yes they've been consistent in not banning any of those, but that doesn't mean it's right.

So presumably when it was Mathers and Tomkins you were moaning that they should have been banned?

Just checking if you have any credibility and consistency on the issue.

Thanks for that, I'd made up an alternative in my mind that while it fitted probably wasn't suitable for a family forum.



Do the RFL not have a duty to sanction the action rather than the result of the action?

I presume they viewed the incident as careless rather than wreckless, accidental contact rather than intentional contact.

Hence not applying the maximum penalty for the Grade A offence.

No i wasn't 'moaning' but i was surprised after Sam didn't get anything. Clearly not taking into account anything i've said, maybe try reading what i've said before trying to have a go with a smart comment. Kicking out may just be careless and no doubt that Senior didn't realise Joel was there from his reaction, btut if careless actions lead to injuries then something needs to be done about them doesn't it, so next time...

Ok, thanks for clearing that up: no consistency or credibility. Dirty Pretty Thing had you cock on.

Ah right, seeing as i've mae the same points in every post, i'd say that's consistent, as for credibility, what do you think this is? I thought it was just a forum where people post their opinions, so get over yourself. Nothing i've said is getting through your thick skull so, in a bit.

I highlighted the bit about kick to the head. When you phrase it like that you assume that the kick to the head was the intention and it was done carelessly - ie. a careless kick to the head. Senior was not kicking anyone in the head, he was doing what practically all player do in a game every tackle- moving his feet around to free of tacklers. If RL players went around kicking each other in the head then all the dire consequences you list may eventually happen (although perhaps not the ones from Hollywood films like getting their nose bones smashed into their brains). It was a penalty - end of.

Oh, and concussion is seldom a reason for a missed game. In Union it's an automatic 3 game rest. In League players are assessed and compared to their normal reactions - and I can't remember too many players ever missing a game because they were concussed the week before. You are also unlikely to get concussion from a stray boot. I've been knocked out by knees, shoulders but most often by the ground itself.

But what I don't understand (to those posters saying something needs to be done) is that something has been done .... this time.

Senior has had to front the full disciplinary panel to explain his actions and as a result he came away £300 lighter in his back pocket.

What more would you have liked to have seen for an accidental consequence of a careless action?

Let's wait and see what happens to the next player penalised for trying to regain his feet quickly to play the ball.



That's correct in the modern game.

The use of the cognitive test seems to have removed the mandatory absence that was once commonplace.

Its your hypocritical failure to make these points in the past when Wigan players were accused that is the issue not whether your whining has been consistent on this thread.

That lack of consistency removes any credibility your blubbing about Senior might otherwise have had.

Sorrycouldn't resist commenting back to this excuse for a comeback...
I wasn't on these boards when the last incidents happened...so how was a i supposed to make those points that would make me consistent?
i said i was shocked when Sam didn't get a ban when you asked about that, so hows that not being 'consistent' about it.