Really?


SBW at Elland Road ring any bells?!

He still got up and played the ball didn't he???

I thought he attempted but he couldnt

There was certainly a bit of wobble.

I guess the irony was lost..........
To give Bai his due, he did play the ball & even carried on playing for 10 mins despite being (to use a Stevo-ism) in cloud cuckoo land!

I am firmly of the belief that a shoulder charge is well within the rules of the game, so long as both feet are on the ground at point of impact (ie not jumping into the tackle to give extra momentum). Emphasis has to be on the attacker to protect themselves, if you lead with your head & duck into a challenge you have to accept you may get clobbered.

Much more sensible to acknowledege the defender is gonna try to plant a shoulder on you and side step - leaving them looking a tad foolish. However given the players involved it was more a clash of egos & neither was gonna back down - this is what makes the game great!

Just hope both are fit for the cup game, a classic awaits

there would be 90 penalties a game if that was the case

i agree 100 percent, it keeps them honest

I always find photos of tackles misleading. From thoses I'd say Senior is committing a grapple tackle and Cayless is commiting a head-butt.

Truth is they probably aren't but that's the problem with having a split second in isolation.

Marcus heard a few - definately.

and saw a few pigeons round his head

I fully accept your argument here as the most effective tackles are driven through the shoulder first with the arms wrapping around. Even if League followed Union's example I don't think the arms would absolutely need to wrap around for the tackle to be deemed legal as long as the arms are in motion to do so. If the ball carrier bounced away before the arms got there it would still be an OK tackle although open to the referee's interpretation but isn't every tackle anyway.

I think the sport has a potential problem in this area when so many people within the game are defending a deliberate tackling technique that resulted in a player being injured and a disciplinary process putting the responsibility of the point of impact onto the ball carrier.

Fa'asavalu's run was crouched a couple of steps before the impact but as Bailey had probably already fixed his target and closed his eyes anticipating the impact of the hit by that stage it ended up in the attacker's mush.

Tackling technique aside, it was just one of those things. Neither were (nor particularly should) back down in that situation and it's a run where someone was likely to come off second best and there's nothing wrong with that.

but turning it around i cant see there being an issue had maurie turned side on and knocked bailey on his

and if maurie wants to run like that because it helps him bust tackles thats fine but he will come off second best from time to time

When that happens we'll have a look at that as well.

We already have the cases where the ball carrier gets the bumper up and when they get that wrong it results in penalties and sometimes worse.

thats when they get it wrong though

had bailey got it by lifting his elbow then he should be punished

A shoulder into the head is (for me) another example of getting it wrong even if the game at large has a problem agreeing with my viewpoint.

i cant agree, baileys tackle was perfectly executed

Bailey's tackle is massive, apparently.

And legal apparently so I'll just have to be at odds with the game as it stands. So be it.

A headbutt, upper arm, lower arm, elbow, knee, boot to the head would all be deemed illegal but not a shoulder in this instance.

Page 2 called, can it have it's joke back?

I know it's not meant but couldn't the official SL website have taken more care with it's [url=http://www.superleague.co.uk/news headlines[/url

I've heard that also.

Not having a go at Bailey or Leeds, but if a tackle that leaves a player with a facial/head injury, or knocks him out, is deemed to be legal, shouldnt the definition of what is legal be reconsidered?

Its quite common for players/clubs/fans/commentators to defend tackles on the the grounds that the initial contact was legal, but shouldnt it be the responsibility of the tackler to ensure that they do not end up making contact with the head? ie the tackler should leave a safety margin?

In which case then no-one would ever tackle Rob Burrow unless they started in a kneeling position.

To Cibaman, welcome to the debate.

I was beginning to think it was just me.





Rob Burrow is tackled legally (on occasions) every week without anyone resorting to kneeling to do so..

No. Simply. If you attack the head, that's illegal. If you perform a sloppy tackle, swing a high one, that's illegal. If someone leans their head in, or moves their body into a different position, just before the point of impact, that's up to them. But should that be illegal? No. It's rugby league, it's meant to be played tough. Those slight margins are the rough and tough that's part and parcel of playing rugby. If you start down that route, what about injuries to the head or face that occur after the point of impact i.e. a head injury sustained when the player hits the floor, or from the impact of a secondry tackler?

This game is tough. This game is rough. I love it.