I'm really having a problem here. If you go into a tackle (the expression means making a movementnt to-wards the tackled player) then of course you should not contact the head. However if a player insists on running into you and you DO NOT MOVE then the responsiblity must be on the tacklee (is that a word?) . If bailey had swung an arm or raised an elbow then yes he would be at fault seeing as he did neither then I'm sorry but no sympath.

Right, so I take the ball up at first receiver and run straight at you. It's my responsibility as the ball carrier to ensure that I put my head in a place where you can't hit it if you stand still?

I'm sorry, but that's ludicrous.

he tried to but it just came out as "mmmmmmm hmmmmmm hmmmmm mmmmmmm hmmmmm".

His jaw is wired.

tez said its the ball carrying forwards choice what line he runs. does he step left? does he step right, does he just run the line. tez said he thought maurie tried to run right over bailey and targeted bailey with his run. bailey stood his ground didnt jump up turned to the side and used his shoulder to stop the runner which is all within the laws of the game. bailey took up the challenge maurie laid down with his run and mauire can off second best. tez said what should bailey have done? got out of the way or made a submisive tackle. its a tough game and all the players no the score if your flying in at full pelt.

ps i dont think your from cronulla

Yes. I agree that is ludicrous. My point is that Bailey didn't do anything IMO that was intentional, reckless or careless. It was an accident that he got hit in the head. Just like when Burrow got hit in the head in the same game.

yes, you have a duty of care to protect yourself,

maurie didnt brace himself for impact, thats his problem

it cant be a high tackle when your arms are by your side, thats just crazy,

i would also add with his feet also planted

but shouldnt we count the shoulder as part of the arm, as you can only takle with your arms?

bailey didnt do anything wrong. but i think the rules should be altered before burrows loses his head to someone steaming in. if we say you can make a tackle as high as you want if your arms are by your side we're gonna see all kinds of madness...

I don't think it is, the defender could stand there on side with his eyes closed and not move a muscle, how on earth could he be doing anything wrong?

IMO nobody did anything wrong, it's the most physical of physical sports and sometimes these things happen.

That is the inherent danger with the laws as they stand and Potter is right to point it out.

In my opinion it's probably time for the shoulder only challenge to be outlawed.

i dont know if it shold be outlawed, but the responsibility should be with the defender for where it lands and it should be deamed violent conduct if you land someone one in the chops

Agree with that bit. Disagree with the final line, of course it can be a high tackle even if he doesn't use his arms.

Potter was interviewed on SSN last night and he said something along the lines of, "When a player ducks from 6ft 4 to 6ft and breaks his nose something is going wrong." However, my opinion on that is that if he runs upright and Bailey hits him in the same way, he hits him in the chest.

Just my look on it though.

Oh and like tvoc said I think it may be time to have a look at the rule on this type of tackle. As someone said before, SBW put in some massive hits but I'm pretty sure he has had a few bad shoulder injuries as well?

Wouldn't make a great deal of difference to the modern game TBH. Tackling is moving more towards restraint & wrestling techniques rather than out and out collisions and will, I suspect, continue to do so.

It can backfire badly, ask Adrian Morley.

For me you primarily tackle with the arms. A shoulder without the arms wrapping around is a dangerous technique both for the player giving and receiving and it probably explains why they are rarely seen in a game.

but you cant alter the height of yous shoulder as you can your arm,

they way maurie was running had bailey dipped his shoulder to hit mauries chest it would have greatly increased the risk of a clash of heads which could have resulted serious injury to both parties

and you can only shoulder barge as high as your hieght players arent going to start leaping into each other for many reasons, not least it being a rubbish technique easily stepped

and burrow wouldnt run in like maurie did, he is much more agile and so runs more angles looking to step and duck, than trying to run through a player like maurie tried

there is no need to change the rules, this isnt a new thing and it adds to the game

This is IMO as much to do with the poor running techniques in this country. How many times does the attacking forward collect the ball from an almost standing start. The only time they seem to take the ball at pace is when the gain line has been broken and a quick ball is played to a close running attacker whilst the defensive line is still trying to form.

This must have now passed "the voluntary tackle" as the most talked about non-incident ever

If things had been a little different and it had been "Fielden's volountary tackle" then you lot would still have not let it lie.

I fear you are correct

Agree. Time it was gone in my opinion.

To be fair we've now moved beyond the "non-incident" and onto the general premise of tackling technique. Which seems an apt use of a Rugby League discussion forum.

I suspect that Potter is incorrect in his interpretation of the RFL ruling. From the RFL website...



...it's a bit ambiguous, they could mean:

a) Player does make contact with head of opponent, shoulder not elbow or forearm, not an illegal challenge. Opponent dips into tackle.

OR

b) Player does make contact with head of opponent, shoulder not elbow or forearm. Not an illegal challenge, opponent dips into tackle.

For me (b) is the correct interpretation and also how I interpret the challenge - i.e. the challenge was not illegal because Maurie ducked into the contact rather than Bailey attacking his head.

The mention of being the shoulder is, to me, a clarification over Eddie's initial reaction on Sky (he said it was a forearm until Stevo and Cullen corrected him on the replay). I also assume it is mentioned as a mitigating factor - it shows lack of intend and that Bailey had less control over where the contact was than if it had been a forearm.

id have thought it was standard to change the height of your shoulder in the tackle, ie get lower. if your upright your only going one way; backwards.

a few years ago we were seeing players in the NRL leaping into tackles to make shoulder charges so it did happen before the cleared it up.

RE burrows - you need to be proactive not reactive. no good just waiting til a 5'4'' player comes along with rubbish feet and gets decapitated.

and people who say that its the attackers responsibility. what happens when a players slipping a tackle but still gets slowed down/held up. he's just an easy target for one of these tackles, particularly if he stumbles. and yes, i have seen this happen