Well you seem to be in the minority here then, most folk on here, and not just the Rhinos fans but Saints, Wakefield and others,are of an opinion that there was no deliberate malice in Seniors actions and the contact with Tomkins was accidental.

I’m not saying that what he did was acceptable far from it, kicking out can and does cause injury. As I and others have stated it is a ploy that is OFTEN used by many players to give the impression that they are struggling to get upright and are being unnecessarily held down.

It is not a tactic designed to deliberately inflict injury on another player – it is far too blatant and obvious for that.

No-one is condoning Senior’s actions here; we lost Sinfield in the World Cup Challenge due to a Storm player kicking out in the tackle which arguably lost us the game. What I am saying is that Keith was careless and reckless but there was no malevolence in his actions

First up, you don't 'know' it was deliberate. You choose to believe it because it fits your agenda. Despite the player stating the opposite and the independent RFL disciplinary panel viewing it as not being deliberate. Still I'm sure you 'know' best eh?

Second, the actions taken with regards to previous incidents (even where the action was judged to have been deliberate) set the precedent that no ban should be given.

Third, by the RFL's own admission players routinely kick in all games to try to secure a quicker play or convince the referee they are being held down too long, with no action during the game or after.

Fourth, on the basis of the precedents and the view that the action is not deliberate the RFL has no option but to decline the option to ban.

Fifth, when incidents of this nature have occurred in the past you haven't felt the need to start any online hand wringing and wailing. I wonder why?

See the post above - no precedent for any other action.

With regards to the precedents, the most telling come from players in cherry and white (who were cited far more often than KS and in the case of ST were found to have kicked out deliberately unlike KS). Now, I'd assume your outrage at the failure to apply bans for these Wigan players would be even louder in those cases considering the foot stamping you've carried out on here.

Not sure what user id you were using for the Mathers incident so maybe you could link to the posts you made complaining that he wasn't banned - you know, just to confirm your credibility and dismiss any accusations of pathetic hypocrisy?

I ask that because at the time of the Sam Tomkins verdict you didn't make any post on the subject at all, which doesn't look good. In fact, your nearest post at that time was one referring to Jon Wilkin as a thug while referring to Terry Newton as a 'legend'. Was this a typo and in fact you intended to type Sam Tomkins as the thug and Newton as a 'Leg end'?

Absolutely rediculous. Do you think about this stuff as you type it? Please tell me you're not thinking this rationaly, please tell me there is froth at the corner of your mouth and you are in a self righteous rage. I'd hate to think you were calm and collected when you wrote this drivel.

Who's frothing, certainly not I? Self righteous? you obviously dont understand the maening of the phrase, please explain how that applies to me in this instance?
Again, if Senior kicked his feet up in the air in the way he did(he had no need to) how is that not a deliberate act? Who influenced his brain to move his body in such a way. It was he & he alone, he chose to kick out, that is a deliberate act, nobody else made him do it. I've seen the incident & re-watched it, I'll stand by what I say.

You are missing the point by a county mile here - Yes Senior did deliberately kick out but he had no intention of making contact with another player.

Do I need to explain why players kick out in the tackle again?

Except it wouldn't. Players would realise it's against the rules and stop doing lest they spend time in the sin bin. Simples!



By your highly fallicious logic, what you're saying is neither you or I can never pass comment on the millions of perfectly fair legal tackles that happen in Rugby League because once upon a time we didn't comment on one.

I didn't see the Tomkins incident you refer to, but if it was as bad as Seniors - and I highly doubt it was - then yes, I would have been calling for the ban then too. I despise unfair play whoever carries it out, which is why I dislike players like Keiron Cunningham, James Graham, Leon Pryce, James Lowes, Vila Matautia, Ryan Bailey, Matt Diskin, and Wigan players such as Craig Smith. I was pretty annoyed when we signed Andy Coley for the same reason, but he has cleaned up his act (obviously with the exception of last week). I also hate coaches who encourage foul play in their team (hence why I hated the thought of having Ian Millward as head coach) such as Nathan Brown hinted at not too long ago.

Far worse than me "not commenting" on an incident that I didn't see is you trying to defend an obviously incorrect decision, which I don't think any Wigan fans on here have tried to do.

Senior's lash out was just the same as Coley's tackle. They both knew they shouldn't do it, neither intended to seriously injure their victim, but they did it anyway and should face the consequences. Only one did, and he didn't cause a player to need 8 stitches. Are we understanding the actual point being made now?



Yes, please explain why players do something dangerous that contravenes the rules and expect not to be punished for it.

You sure it was Tompkins he kicked in the head and not you?

I'm not so sure!

Right… again for the hard of reading. Players kick out when tackled to give the (often false) impression that they are struggling to stand and are being held for an unnecessarily long duration.

They expect to get away with it as 99% of the time they usually do. As it stands refs do not penalise this offence as it does not affect the flow of the game.

You are right in saying that it is against the rules but then again so are 90% of the PTB’s see in today’s game yet players persistently ‘break’ this rule as it is seldom penalised.

Do you understand now or do you need pictures?

Don't try and insult me or treat me with impudence, [iyou[/i are completely missing the point. Senior kicks WITH ONE FOOT as high as he possibly can. He is NOT just trying to regain his feet.

And even if he was, kicking out is AGAINST THE RULES.

Players do NOT usually kick out like that. They'll try to regain their feet, usually trying to propel their backside from the floor, if they do kick they kick horizontally, not vertically as Senior does.

Once again I will ask, as this is beyond doubt one of if not THE most serious examples of kicking out at the tackle, what do you have to do to qualify for the one match ban?

Most PTBs are fine, by the way, as the rules were changed to say "[imake an attempt[/i to touch the ball" to speed up play and stop penalties for incorrect PTBs.

As I've said, I've no doubt he didn't mean to kick Tomkins in the head, just as Coley didn't mean to tackle dangerously, but the fact remains that they did these things in breach of the rules of the game, and should be punished accordingly. The problem is that whilst somehow Senior still doesn't manage to qualify for the maximum one match ban, it is now evident that the ruling on kicking out at the tackle isn't adequate and the sanctions need to be increased.

As I've said earlier, if the players are stopped from getting away with it, they'll stop doing it, net effect on the speed of the game is zero, effectively the cleanliness and quality of the game are increased. Wins all round.

Well, I am, and always have done.

You, on the other hand, are drifting ever further from reality on your insane journey aboard the good ship 'One Eyed Hypocrite'.

You're funny though.

You can tell it's school holidays at the moment if you're up this late.

When you can actually ARGUE or DEBATE a point without simply ignoring whole posts and using a word that you obviously don't even understand, then I'll start taking what you say seriously. Otherwise, it'd be best to let the people with at least double-figure IQs continue this debate.

As I said earlier...

Ok then, taking your suggestion to it’s conclusion and refs start pinging for a ‘kick out’ – how exactly are you going to govern this rule, what’s the cut off point between a player repositioning his legs to stand up and a ‘kick out’?

It would be ambiguous and open to individual interpretation which is exactly what the RFL are trying to move away from.

Introducing ‘woolly’ rules to cover a seldom dangerous tactic is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Remember it’s Rugby we’re talking about, not netball or cricket.

NEVER take the JVT thread in vain...

Ah, you mean the current rules on "grapple tackles" aren't ambiguous and open to interpretation? And Chicken Wing tackles? And high tackles too? In fact the rules regarding the PTB are pretty "woolly" too...

Very few of the rules are applied consistently across the board, of course in an ideal world they would be.

To my mind, the rule should be just like it is for the dangerous tackles. A certain degree of leg movement is expected, natural in regaining the feet. A player tackled on his front would naturally use his arms to regain his feet, bringing his legs underneath him, therefore no "kicking" motion would be permitted at all as it's COMPLETELY unneccessary. A player on his back would most likely use one arm and turn slightly to the side to lift up (try it yourself). Again, little (if any) kicking motion is necessary.

A player tackled should be encouraged to allow the tacklers to get off him, remember they have the motivation to get off because they wouldn't want to concede a penalty for holding down, and it's already their responsibility to move clear of the PTB because they wouldn't want to concede a penalty for interference.

The impetus is already there for the tackling team to move away cleanly, so introducing an impetus for the tackled player not to kick out unneccessarily (which should already be there, being in breach of the rules and all) should speed the game up, not slow it down.

Senior kicked out. He didn't get away with it he was correctly penalised by referee Bentham (Richards missed the resultant penalty attempt at goal IIRC), he was charged with a Grade A offence, summoned to appear before the disciplinary, came away with a punishment that fell within the range for a Grade A offence.

I haven't seen it yet but didn't McGoldrick get penalised today at Wigan for a similar offence?

None of the above is in dispute. What is in dispute is:

1) As one of the worst cases of kicking out seen, how much further do you have to go to get the maximum 1 match ban under the current classification?

2) As 3 other less serious offences were awarded bans that weekend, why wasn't Senior also banned?

3) Should the Grade A classification be changed, or indeed a new assignment made for "Kicking out with connection to the head or face" with a higher grade offence given the high potential for injury compared to high tackles / chicken wing tackles / grapple tackles / spear tackles?

Question 1 is yet to be answered by anyone. Question 2, well, obviously there's the current classification, but in direct comparison to say leading with the elbow, the classification is clearly wrong. Which leads to question 3. To which the answer has to be "Yes".

What we're seeing here is that you can deliberately kick a player in the head (in the tackle) and only receive a one match ban, even if you kill him. However, throw him onto his back (unlikely to cause injury, although there is potential) and you may get... well... several matches. Or even months.

That's inconsistent, pure and simple.

1) worst case is your opinon, there is no way that accidental contact can be worse than deliberate, it can cause greater injury but that is not a relevent argument for reasons pointed out previously, the answer is simple, look at the records and show me a case that led to a ban, that is what you need to do (if there are none then we havnt seen the level yet) - remember the incident itself is not the only consideration and only the RFL can answer the question

2) less serious is your opinion again, you should learn to use facts, it's much easier

3) you again wish to grade offences on the basis of injury and not severity of offence or intent which is just plain wrong

deliberately kicking someone in the head is not kicking out, that is different - it has already been established that this was not deliberate - high potential for injury, how many incidents of injury can you point me to other than this one incident? are you describing the spear tackle at the end of the paragraph, if so you are a fool

Not for the first time ...... I agree with Nick ..... I mean Hopie.

Hark at Mr Mature with the avatar of a 5 year old!

You're a one eyed hypocrite, simple as.

Or, more accurately a very emotional one eyed hypocrite whose confused drivel on this subjects goes round in circles.

1) Take a look at your avtar. For a grown man to produce that is truly pitiful.

2) You insist on claiming Senior's kick was deliberate, ignoring the findings of the disciplinary panel that found that it was not. Are you a mind reader perchance?

3) You claim you conveniently missed the events when Wigan players were charged with the same offence (and in one case was found to have kicked out at the player deliberately - unlike Senior - and in the other the panel were unsure of intent). Funny that. Conveniently missed your own players commiting the offence and being charged: hypocrite and liar = zero credibility.

4) Despite your laughable claim to have even missed your own players commiting the offence and being charged you describe Senior's 'offence' to be the worst of its kind. Your like 'Tommy' being called up as a key witness - the deaf and blind Fishta swears he saw and heard everything m'lud.

5)You defend players like Terry Newton yet describe players like Cunningham, Diskin and Bailey as thugs. You sad, sad man

Your jealousy of Leeds and saints is like a cancer eating away at your capacity for rational thought yet alone comment.

6) Senior was charged with an offence for which there is a range of punishments available. The actions of the panel are entirely consistent with their previous actions when 2 Wigan players were charged with the same offence - you know the offences you pretend you didn't know about




Yet you make deluded claims about not being able to have a rational debate. How the chuff do you have a rational debate with a tired, emotional fruitcake?

[urlhttp://viewtopic.php?f=28&t=409593[/url

How many Wigan fans wanted Tomkins banned.

Its only 6 pages long. No wonder Fishta missed both it and the incident.

It's a great thread and proves the point that some have been trying to make which was never about defending Senior.

I would have had no problem with Senior getting banned and I said that before his disciplinary.

Wigan Fans

Senior kicks out = burning an orphanage down

Tomkins kicks out = It was the other guys fault, lets pay his fine for him.

And one poster actually said re Tomkins[i"He didn't kick him hard enough"[/i