It was the combination of factors that made it a red, late and high, plus for me it was a clear shoulder charge.

4 games seems harsh, but then again if you attempt a stupid cheap shot like that (using a technique which has just been banned) then you take your chances.

People seem to be overlooking that he was up for 2 offences, the first was striking Millard which he admitted and got 2 games for an early guilty plea.

Then he got another 2 games for the later dangerous tackle.

Two games seems about right for each. I don't think you get any discount for bulk.

In that case the punishment sounds correct.

You reckon?



How?

It's justice, if he had been pulled for the thumping of Diskin in the Leeds game he wouldn't have been playing and got the ban. Perhaps he is compensating for his lack of skill by using "violence".

2 games for the swinging arm for a guilty plea is fair to me Thought he might get sending off sufficient for the late tackle since it didn't look like a shoulder to me, just a bit late and with contact to the head.

My apologies with the word spear,I am just concerned about player welfare here at the end of the day and JJB could have been seriously injured in that tackle,but I believe the fact that he was not made the judiciaries decision easier

I take it that all you Bulls fans that didn't see much wrong in Whiteheads tackle would also take that same view if a similar innocent tackle was made on a Bradford player but if a serious injury occurred in the process?

Can't comment on the tackle, mate. I could not get to the game because I was still at work after KO, and I canned Sky a few months ago (not paying for Sky when Bulls share of the Sky money has been confiscated) so have not seen it.

I didn't think it was a "spear" tackle as JJB landed on his shoulder. It went above the horizontal was dangerous, but don't think it was a red or a ban IMHO.

Bailey is just a thug, if you watch him he only gets brave when he's running in when somebody is not expecting it just like he did with his forearm to diskins head on Thursday,or like on Monday at Catalan,twice.

You watch next time Leeds are on sky and he's available to play,which is the bulls at home,if he tackles somebody small he gets up while they are playing the ball like he's Mike Tyson,if he tackles a big bloke he gets up while they are playing the ball like he's Audley Harrison

He is the original bully, only joins in when he thinks he will get the upper hand

Shits himself when he knows he won't

I've consistently said that the word "spear" is bandied about far too often.

A spear tackle, by definition, is specifically when the head is driven into the ground, often with both the weight of the tackled player and the tackler behind it, and [inot[/i just when the legs go over the horizontal; there is a world of difference. To be honest, I've not seen a genuine "spear" tackle for years and sincerely hope I never see another.

For what its worth, I think that lifting the legs is being taken to silly levels these days, even to the extent of players unintentionally getting the legs too high [not that difficult in multiple tackles with players pulling in different directions and then putting the tackled player down as gently as a mother putting a baby in a pram, and [istill[/i being penalised.

TBH, I can see in a couple of years there been some sort of ban on lifting, like they currently have in union. Tip tackle I think they call it

... were all correct in that assessment, as it is the same one taken by the disciplinary authorities. But you keep right on trying to persuade the world that you alone saw it for the heinous attempted murder that you clearly think it was.





1. It was not an "innocent" tackle. It was exactly what we all saw, exactly what the ref called at the time, and exactly what the disciplinary made of it.

2. If a serious injury (or any injury) occurs in an "innocent tackle", on what basis would you possibly punish the innocent tackler who is, er, innocent?

You really haven't thought any of this through, have you son?

Whiteheads lift reminded me of Seymour on Crookes last year. I thought at the time Seymour should have received a ban so I'll not be hypocritical and say that I think Whitehead should have got away without one, but Seymour got a caution as well so it appears consistent.
[urlhttp://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12210/8049448/Seymour-receives-caution[/url