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

Potter is talking nonsense for me.

Bailey is also 6ft 4...his shoulder height is probably somewhere around that 6ft mark that Maurie was ducking to...do the maths Mick

(oh and we already know something did go wrong - Maurie got injured)

in the nrl the problem was players coming from the blindside


he simply wouldnt get to sl level

there are was and means of protecting yourself, even then

First time I've really commented on the tackle due to the mass hysteria over the week on these boards.

I thought the challenge was a good one and the 'blame' lies with Fa'asavalu for the way he went in. He tilted his head downwards and used no evasive movement at all, Bailey stood his ground and Maurie came off second best.

The problem for me lies with the rules being anything but clear. The tackle wasn't deliberate, wasn't careless or reckless either yet it did connect with the head so it could be interpreted as a high one (generally by those who haven't played the game I'd think).

At the end of the day, it isn't a girls game and tough challenges are going to happen. Maurie lost this one, I'd imagine we'll see round 2 in a week between them and I for one, cannot wait.

That's the point Cullen and O'Connor were making on Boots n All last night. If Bailey had moved, left the floor, or anything like that then there was something to talk about. As it was, all he did was brace himself for the hit, it was Maurie who chose to run into him.

Also, I think that is a slight distinction between this tackle and the one on Burrow in the WCC. On that occasion, it was the opponent, Watmough, who moved in order to make the tackle. If the attacker choses to enter into the collision, he's got a bigger duty of care as to where his head is.

3 points:

what difference does it matter what side your coming from?

there are always gonna be exceptions, someone short with fantastic hands for example

you shouldnt have to protect your head from a tackle when your upright, thats why we have the head hight rule in the first place. if your going down likewise. im not saying we need to change the rules just tidy them up regarding the shoulder being classed as the arm and thus head high

Bailey did move though, didn't he? I seem to recall he shifted forward with his teammates to make the challenge.

Once he got there it was just one of those things that happens in the game but still a penalty for me as Bailey's shoulder contact was with the head. In all likelihood Bailey and Fa'asavalu will have had their eyes closed at the moment of impact as that's the natural thing to do unless you're Syd Hynes.

the blindside is, well blind and the attacker cannot prepare

if their feet are that bad it wouldnt matter

you should always protect yourself, why reward poor play which is what maurie did

the head made as much contact with shoulder as the shoulder made with the head

the head made as much contact with shoulder as the shoulder made with the head

You're probably right, although I'm not sure Bailey had time to respond to Fa'asavalu dropping his head. And even if he had, his body position was such that he'd have been flattened, had he tried to readjust his stance (no doubt to accompanying cheers from the saints fans).

I think Cullen got it spot on, both on the night and last night.

As much stick as he may get from Wire fans and whoever else about his lack of personality, I've warmed to him over the last few weeks and his knowledge of the game is good to listen to.

i still dont see what difference it is when people are launcing into the tackle?

ok,lets just say not burrows feet...

i dont think its part of the game protecting your own head when getting tackled, everywhere else yes, but if someone strikes your head with anypart of the body it should be a fowl.

I think shoulder to the head should be illegal. I've watched it plenty of times and I can't really decide how much Maurie dips in or not. I don't think Bailey went to hit him in the head though. Penalty to Saints IMO, but no charge to answer.

I think it is illegal. I think the main crux of the issue is. It was an accident that Bailey made contact with the head, and it had no intent or was dangerous play on Bailey's part.

opinions on the top two pictures? And how they might differ from the Bailey incident?

[urlhttp://leeds.rlfans.com/readarticle.php?article_id=1154[/url

From my experience getting a smack in the head or face was part and parcel of playing the game. If it came from a fist, boot, elbow, forearm or another head and I was lucky I might win a penalty.

Then again RL players could all start to wear the same sort of protective clothing their counterparts in American Football wear.

I suspect from what I've read here recently that most Saints supporters would be in favour of this?

I've read your comments earlier, and I pretty much agree with you here, shoulder charges into the head are probably a rare (especially now SBW is playing Union) grey area that needs to be considered. The tackler should have a duty to avoid the head area, same as any other impact.
However, I don't see anything wrong with tackling without arms, it's the location of the tackle that probably needs clearing up. The best technique usually is to use the arms after shoulder impact simply to stop the tackled player bouncing off, but in Union if the arms aren't wrapped around it's a penalty. I find it difficult to see how you can coach kids to make the shoulder the first point of contact then penalise them if they knock a guy over before you can wrap your arms around him. There is so much scope for interpretation that it's unworkable and we have an already available example of it in action. It's a terrible law that just adds to the already apocalyptic penalty count in an average game. League is an impact sport, as long as the impact is away from the head area and with the shoulder or arms then that's fine with me.