What a steaming pile of horse. If as an attacker all you need to do to get a penalty is run low at the biggest guy then fall on the floor this game is finished. If TP had took his head off I agree it's a red but he ran into it ! utter

dreadfull decision his elbow only came up after the collision , no case to answer

if tp bent hes knees a little it would of been a legal shoulder charge, he didnt get low enough, rob burrow gets given penaltys all the time and he ducks with hes head so whats the difference? also when players are slipping over the defender still cant make contact with the head. end of the day it is the tacklers responsibility to make sure its a legal tackle and what tp did isn't legal.

If he had bent his knees it would have looked even worse as it would have looked like he was making a deliberate charge for the head.

The Catalan player ended up with a bust nose, that suggests to me that there was contact with his head. I didn't think that he intended to attack the head though.

running with your head down does that ...

So you agree that there was contact with his head?

Nearly identical but most posters on here had a very different opinion

I felt for TP. Not a dirty player at all, and that shot should have been the match winning play. There was contact with the head, but there has to be some responsibility on the ball carrier for the way impact occurs. If you run into a tackle and duck your head there's always a good chance you'll get hit on it. That used to be considered in referees' interpretations of high tackles, but not any more, it seems.

Exept that Bailey jumped,TP didnt he stood his ground.

Nice story but it's not true

There must have been he basically put his head down and ran into TP , whats he supposed to do move out of the way????

I watched it again this morning and the chuckle brother isnt saying anything,his mouth doesnt move at all,but Thaler is having a conversation with someone so it must of been Smith.

He made contact with the head, so it was a penalty. Agree though, if those become sending off's, like with Sam Moa then the days of big hits will be over, which would be such a shame.

Ian Smith definetly made it up to you with a naff call against Catalans for the no try though.

Disagree , technically he interfered with Makinson which makes it a correct call . If he was going for that ball he needs to get his eyes tested.

We are probably guilty of thread drift here, but in my opinion, any interference was marginal and accidental at best, he was contesting the ball. A bit like the sending off (see how I get things back on track!

), if we start calling that a no-try, then we might as well go to touch rugby as players will be scared to make any sort of contact. Two poor decisions in my opinion, both made by Ian Smith.

I dislike the shoulder charge tackle, it is very dangerous and can be a cause to serious injuries. It is part of the game and I don't expect to see it outlawed but trialling the system they have in RU might not be the end of the world.

Just a suggestion.

No, I agree that it was a harsh red card, but there's no point people arguing that there was no contact to the head when there was.

I've just watched the game back again and the evidence is inconlusive. Yes, the Dragons' player's head goes back but that could have been as a result of the impact. Looking at the movement of TP's arm, it begins in the chest and moves upwards. But even so, from the angles offered by all the replays, actual contact with the head is not definitive.

It doesn't need changing. What needs changing is the people involved in officiating the game. Those people are in those positions simply because they put their hand up to do it. They have no competences that make them suitable and they are not high calibre individuals.

The shoulder charge tackle is fine. If it's done maliciously to attack the head I agree, it should be a red and a ban. But TP planted his feet and was physically stronger when the Catalans player ran into him, he didn't attack the head and contact was only made with the head because TP made his body bigger than the ball carrier who leant into it with his head.

What did my head in about the incident on Sky was their faux outrage at the tackle. They've worshipped players in the past for worse tackles, Burgess on Frodsham for example, Stevo climaxed on air, countless big hits by Sam Burgess, including the one on Moi Moi. They were all championed as awesome tackles, yet were far worse. Adrian Morley, who the Sky team adore has made a career out of his big hits.

I disagree, it serves no purpose in our game

It's takes no skill what so ever (it's not even a tackle) and can cause serious injury

Have you ever played? It adds excitement and it looks great and it does take some skill because if you get it wrong you end up on your backside looking very silly or worse still you get stood up and the opposition shows you a clean pair of heels

So I bet you were outraged when Ryan Bailey knocked Maurie Fa'asavalu out then? Or when Burgess smashed Moi Moi?

Watch it a bit further on and you'll see the player on the receiving end walking off with a busted nose. I'd take that as evidence of there being contact with his head, unless he just happened to get a nose bleed for no real reason at that point in time...

But even if his blooded nose was the result of contact to the head, it doesn't automatically follow that it was TP who made that contact. He could have just as easily busted his nose on impact with the floor, assuming his nose wasn't busted prior to that tackle. I can't say I noticed one way or the other myself.