The rule was introduced to cover the situation where, Hooper style, the player deliberately heads the ball forward.

Exactly. And those rules were not applied because the O'Loughlin hit was a legal challenge. Hence Wilkin getting up afterwards and not being annoyed by the decision to carry on with the game.

I don't understand your argument.

The original argument was about Ryan Hoffman's late challenge on Wheeler, and the rules of the game in respect of tackling a kicker when he is kicking the ball.

I believe the challenge on Wheeler was late. That would make it an illegal challenge on one score.

My understanding of the rules of the game where challenging the kicker are concerned is that the challenging player isn't supposed to aim for the kicker but for the ball, either to intercept it or to put the kicker off. Hoffman clearly shoulder charged Wheeler in the shoulder, popping his AC joint. That is as clear as day on the TV footage. That would make it an illegal challenge on another score.

Therefore, from my POV, what Hoffman did was illegal - because it was late and because it was a direct hit on Wheeler rather than going for the ball.

However, the referee ignored it and whether the RFL will see it the same way is anyone's guess. One minute everyone is being sinbinned and the next no one is. This game's ruling body is very amateurish.

As for the O'Loughlin challenge on Wilkin, from the TV that looked high but as it was a shoulder charge it is hard to tell based on the distance from the camera. The Wheeler challenge, though, was very close to the camera and clear to see.

No problem with your opinion, just don't keep shoving it down everyone's throat.

Sorry pal, think we've got our wires crossed. I can see how some people may argue that the Hoffman challenge was illegal and how some can think that it was not. Personally I still can't decide and like many things in rugby league these days, it's very much down to opinion.

But I was initially responding to a comment about the O'Loughlin challenge on Wilkin which I definitely do think was legal. High-ish but still hit a legal part of the body on initial contact. And I think that's why none of the players made nothing of that particular incident as I presume they thought the same.

Throwing it down everyones throat?

You idiot, this thread is on the Hoffman tackle. I've only had a debate with saintsfan over this and don't see why you keep stalking me with sly little comments.

I dont slag you off for replying to every single post that rouges makes on here that always ends in some silly smilie.

I think if Wheeler had got up, it wouldnt have got a second mention.
I dont think it was illegal, but it could easily have got penalised

That's how I see it.

I think it would. But it wouldn't have pi$$ed ME off quite so much if Wheeler had got up. The fact is, though, he didn't. And the reason why he didn't was because Hoffman aimed for his shoulder with a high impact shoulder charge. Hoffman was no way aiming for the ball. Unless Wheeler is gifted in the art of kicking a ball with his shoulder.

As saintcj said if Wheeler would have got up and played on we wouldnt be discussing this at length now. I firmly believe Hoffman was committed to the challenge and shouldnt be charged for it. Just an unfortunate thing that Wheeler ended up injured.

Yes, and well thats life isn't it, but it doesn't make it right does is just because a player gets up?
Any more than knocking somebody down at a pedestrian crossing with your car. If they get hurt badly, you will be in serious trouble, whereas if you are lucky and they get up with hardly a scratch on them, you might concievably get away with it.
Same offence but different consequencies.

The fact that someone doesn't get hurt doesn't make the offence a "non offence". Simples.
However, you will always get penalised more if someone is hurt.

It shouldn't make a difference whether the player gets up or not but that's just the way it goes. Not every late charge/tackle is going to be penalised and I couldn't care less whether Hoffman recieves a ban, I think Wheeler was just unlucky to recieve such a bad injury.

from a neutral point if view it looked late...... i would expect a 1 game ban.

he will probably get 2 games though because as we all know the RFL hate wigan and its one big conspiracy against them.

I'll hold my hands up and accept I'm wrong if I have misinterpreted the rules but when the ball had bounced off Deacons fizzhog, was his teammate who picked the ball up not in a offside position anyway as he was stood in front of Deacon?

It's pedantic and nobody cares.

Anyway, I've watched the Hoffman 'assault' on Wheeler again. If there is such a thing as karma, a piano would fall on that b***ends head.

Silly Boy

Mate, I've noticed for long while that you follow Brian round like a little lap dog making silly posts then ending it in a silly smillie.

I didn't feel the urge to say anything until you came in with "confrontational" comments!

I suggest you stick to making silly comments and following Brian round with your smilies than stalking me.

Thanks

No problem, I suggest you ring the Fosters helpline, Good Call.

As you'll have the number stored in your phone can you msg me the number.

Thanks mate

Can we stop the bickering please? We're all mean to be SAINTS fans, forget about it and move on. Instead of having useless and senseless arguments over incidents from Friday why don't we engage in some sensible discussion looking forwards to today's game which kicks off in 2 and a half hours.

Truce called. COYS.

Truce here as well. COYS

I'm with you. T'was a bit naughty, but "its not tiddleywinks", so I wouldn't particulary villify Hoffman for it.
Its a shame for us, given the circumstances of the day, but that's sport for you.

www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2567

www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2567

Hoffman got smashed by Soliola, so happy days.

Hopefully what goes around comes around.