or perhaps they simply recognized which club was more attractive? hows the last 8 years gone?

Maybe it's because Bousquets last suspension wasn't only 7 competitive games previously. Yeah Chase has managed 7 whole games without taking someone out. That's why he got a 2 match ban. You remember the last one don't you? You know, when he elbowed a second division player in the face and broke his jaw in 3 places during Cas' humiliating defeat.

Why would a Cas lad be Jealous of two Cas lads doing well for them selves, especially when their will always be a touch of black & amber attached to all the Super league Championships what have been won over the last few years.

Hopefully the would club challenge will also have a good bit of Cas on it as well the weekend after next

No perhaps not but how many SL games has he played

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahaha

Really...???

You'll scrape the barrel that deeply for the merest whiff of success?

By that note then, there'll ALWAYS be a bit of blue & amber attached to everything you do.

Wow. Can't win your own silverware so try claiming some of ours on the back of the owners been from Cas. Talk about desperate

Chase assault upon Hardaker was deliberate. The moment he got knocked on his behind, the red mist descended and sadly Hardaker copped it big time. A player with 'previous' (Ropati) should have modified his approach or served an 8-12 match ban. Players like Chase make me now agree that outlawing the 'shoulder charge' is the only means of preventing such thuggery. The RFL disciplinary are useless. Chase and the Cats lad in the same round is two too many violent assaults that this sport does not need.

What on earth is frank5613 trying to prove by keep stating 2 people from Cas are running Leeds,I'm not a Cas fan or a Leeds,but I have to say the Cas fan is a clown.

Also frank5613,you're spelling is just knot funny.

I have no problem with a 2-match ban for that incident in isolation, but I wish the RFL followed the NRL system of weighting bans including past indiscretions (I also think the way the NRL publicise charges with potential points and bans etc works very well - very clear and easy to understand). One of the problems Morley had in the NRL was his previous form adding to his bans - and rightly so given his propensity to hit high too often.

I'm with Fylde Warrior - IMO no 'tackle' is a good one if it involves hitting someone in the head. Shoulder, forearm, makes no difference. Happily both the RFL and NRL seem to have taken this on board, even if some fans (and former players) haven't.

I'm pretty sure the RFL will have taken into account chase's previous 7 match ban for a dangerous tackle, in fact I think he might have only got 1 game if it wasn't for that previous incident.

Chase was lining up the hit after he instigated the massive punch up, a quality rugby player when he decides to play but at times an absolute thug.
The guy should have been sent off by that muppet Roby but he didn't really have a clue all the game. Instead he gave a knock on against Zak and didn't even penalise Cas when Chase started the fight. Don't get me wrong Cas played well over the eighty but unfortunately Roby contributed to the result by his poor decision making as borne out by the RFL's two match ban

Everybody happy now ?

Hardaker dipped into Chase's shoulder much the same as Anderson fell into McGuire's swinging arm last season, turning legitimate attempts into reckless challenges. Both incidents were not clear-cut so both went on report, both went to the disciplinary and both players subsequently received bans.

If Chase was lucky to stay on and help Castleford win the match then logically so were McGuire and Leeds in Perpignan last season. All the Leeds fans being indignant that Chase perhaps got away with something on Sunday will presumably have also been equally indignant last September at the PSF .....

I have to respect the Castleford supporters for the loyalty they're showing to a player that has treated their club like dirty and has been desperate to get out of town given half an opportunity.

It also comes as no surprise to see TVOC show sympathy for an opposition player found guilty of foul play against "his" team. Very balanced and fair poster is TVOC. Regularly hopes for bans for Leeds players in big games when he feels it's merited as well as defending opposition players who foul his lads.

What Chase appeared to be attempting on Sunday - a big hit - Leeds players (and players at other clubs) have attempted in the past and hopefully will continue to attempt in the future. It's a high risk collision (for both parties) but when it connects legally there are fewer finer sights. Paul Anderson's hand off of Gary Connolly at Odsal is up there as well.

What's the difference between Bailey on Fa'asavalu at Knowsley Road and Chase on Hardaker at Wheldon Road ? Fans IMO should either accept both or condemn both because it doesn't become an act of thuggery purely dependant on the colour of the jersey.

TVOC-How can you compare two different incidents?
Chase went flying in leading with his shoulder already aimed high and hit Hardaker flush on the chin whereas Faasavalu was falling into Bailey whilst getting tackled who stood his ground .
The 2 incidents in question are different scenarios what ban did Bailey get for that collision btw??
As for the Mcguire one why dont you mention the number of times O'louchlin gets away with worse or very similar or Westwood ??

Thats an odd thing for someone who continually compares different incidents to ask. It's no less legitimate when others do it also.



The incidents were very similar, a stooping ball carrier meeting the defenders shoulder head first.



The referees initial reaction in both was the same as knock-ons were ruled. IIRC Bailey received no ban but the incident did spark a debate about when contact is made between one player's shoulder and another player's head - Mick Potter's comments were waved away at the time by the RFL but it is something that is now being applied through on field dismissals and/or bans through the disciplinary procedure when these type of collisions go wrong.



Because that would miss the point. Just because other players get away with something now and again (as do Leeds players now and again) doesn't mean McGuire or Chase have been hard done by in these incidents having gone on report and subsequently received bans through the correct procedure.

McGuire had a major influence with both ball in hand and off the boot in the PSF at Stade Gilbert Brutus in a game (if you follow the logic of some of the argument on here) he should have been dismissed from (as should Fakir later) and perhaps Leeds' season would have ended there and then.

That's the point, if you are happy to get the benefit of the doubt when it goes in your favour then you have to accept you'll be unlucky in other situations as perhaps was the case on Sunday. A meaningless two comp points lost at Castleford is a small price to pay over eighty minutes from Old Trafford.

Don't be so soft. It's a contact game, mistakes happen

If there's intent then, by definition, it's not a mistake.

From the poor footage I've seen I'll accept that Chase caught Zak with his shoulder.

Now, can anyone explain to me why he's been charged with an illegal shoulder charge when the RFL has sanctioned the shoulder charge as a legitimate tackling technique? What's the difference between a legal and an illegal shoulder charge? I'm not saying the disciplinary is wrong, I'd just be grateful for some clarification (and yes, I am too lazy to read the rules myself).

I would certainly not argue that Chase's tackle was an act of thuggery.

To be honest, rulings on shoulder charges are a bit confusing. It's either a legal tackle "technique" or its not. If it is, then when it goes high without malicious intent it should be like ay other high tackle.

Personally, I'd be happy to just do away with shoulder charges and make the whole thing simpler. Until then, I think Rangi Chase can probably consider himself a bit unlucky to be banned. Consistent with the Sam Moa incident I suppose.

Oh, and also more or less consistent with the McGuire tackle in the play offs. But I wasn't totally convinced that warranted a ban either.

Rangi Chase is a dirty little sod. He has past history with illegal shots, remember Benji Marshall (his supposed best friend) and the Cas versus Featherstone Cup Game last season when a Fev player was out for something like 10 weeks as a result of Chase.

As for Fozzard passing comments on tackling techniques, just a joke

Quote ="Clearwing"Now, can anyone explain to me why he's been charged with an illegal shoulder charge when the RFL has sanctioned the shoulder charge as a legitimate tackling technique? What's the difference between a legal and an illegal shoulder charge? I'm not saying the disciplinary is wrong, I'd just be grateful for some clarification (and yes, I am too lazy to read the rules myself).'" In this instance I presume it's the point of contact that has changed an otherwise legal challenge into an illegal one and the margin for error is pretty small. This disciplinary ruling is consistent with what appears to be the new norm since 2012 and mirrors the judgements in cases such as Sam Moa V London www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3339 and Tony Puletua V Les Catalans www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3842 Personally I don't recall that either of those were any worse than Kylie Leuluai's on Brett Hodgson at Wembley - a hit so unbelievably brutal but legal that the video referee watched it over and over and over and over again. Phil Bentham couldn't get enough of it. Rugby league at it's savage best and the spectacle of the pro game, played by full-time professional athletes, will be poorer in my view if we eventually have to lose it from the sport ..... which unfortunately I believe we probably will.

Quote ="Clearwing"Now, can anyone explain to me why he's been charged with an illegal shoulder charge when the RFL has sanctioned the shoulder charge as a legitimate tackling technique? What's the difference between a legal and an illegal shoulder charge? I'm not saying the disciplinary is wrong, I'd just be grateful for some clarification (and yes, I am too lazy to read the rules myself).'" In this instance I presume it's the point of contact that has changed an otherwise legal challenge into an illegal one and the margin for error is pretty small. This disciplinary ruling is consistent with what appears to be the new norm since 2012 and mirrors the judgements in cases such as Sam Moa V London www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3339 and Tony Puletua V Les Catalans www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3842 Personally I don't recall that either of those were any worse than Kylie Leuluai's on Brett Hodgson at Wembley - a hit so unbelievably brutal but legal that the video referee watched it over and over and over and over again. Phil Bentham couldn't get enough of it. Rugby league at it's savage best and the spectacle of the pro game, played by full-time professional athletes, will be poorer in my view if we eventually have to lose it from the sport ..... which unfortunately I believe we probably will.

Quote ="tvoc"In this instance I presume it's the point of contact that has changed an otherwise legal challenge into an illegal one and the margin for error is pretty small. This disciplinary ruling is consistent with what appears to be the new norm since 2012 and mirrors the judgements in cases such as Sam Moa V London www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3339 and Tony Puletua V Les Catalans www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3842 Personally I don't recall that either of those were any worse than Kylie Leuluai's on Brett Hodgson at Wembley - a hit so unbelievably brutal but legal that the video referee watched it over and over and over and over again. Phil Bentham couldn't get enough of it. Rugby league at it's savage best and the game will be poorer in my view if we eventually have to lose it from the sport ..... which unfortunately I believe we will.'" You can get bogged down watching frame by frame, but I thought Leuluai put the shoulder into a more conventional tackle (i.e. one using his arms) and I'm also not convinced first contact was with the head, I think shoulder to chest was the main impact. So that (if my viewing of the incident was correct, which of course is a bif 'if') would be a little different. I wouldn't describe that as a shoulder charge. Chase made no effort to use anything other than his shoulder. I find that a bit lazy and I'd be perfectly happy to see it gone. As it stands though, shoulder charges are not illegal, so the ban is a little harsh. Use of lazy technique to generate artificially big hits leaves me short of sympathy though.

Quote ="tvoc"In this instance I presume it's the point of contact that has changed an otherwise legal challenge into an illegal one and the margin for error is pretty small. This disciplinary ruling is consistent with what appears to be the new norm since 2012 and mirrors the judgements in cases such as Sam Moa V London www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3339 and Tony Puletua V Les Catalans www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3842 Personally I don't recall that either of those were any worse than Kylie Leuluai's on Brett Hodgson at Wembley - a hit so unbelievably brutal but legal that the video referee watched it over and over and over and over again. Phil Bentham couldn't get enough of it. Rugby league at it's savage best and the game will be poorer in my view if we eventually have to lose it from the sport ..... which unfortunately I believe we will.'" You can get bogged down watching frame by frame, but I thought Leuluai put the shoulder into a more conventional tackle (i.e. one using his arms) and I'm also not convinced first contact was with the head, I think shoulder to chest was the main impact. So that (if my viewing of the incident was correct, which of course is a bif 'if') would be a little different. I wouldn't describe that as a shoulder charge. Chase made no effort to use anything other than his shoulder. I find that a bit lazy and I'd be perfectly happy to see it gone. As it stands though, shoulder charges are not illegal, so the ban is a little harsh. Use of lazy technique to generate artificially big hits leaves me short of sympathy though.