When it is not contact with the head, which is what Scruton is charged with (it makes no reference to the timing of the tackle).

Translation: "He is charged with striking shoulder to head, which I agree is ridiculous so don't know why I just posted the rest of that, and apologise to the noble Bulls fans I just had a go at".



PS If asked, I would say anyone would agree the tackle was marginally late, I don't see how you could argue against that, and if asked, I would not have objected if a penalty had been awarded, which point I am sure has already been made earlier on the thread by others.

I disagree it was "deliberately late" as I don't believe for a second there was any way Scruton could have stopped himself from making contact with O'Brien. I think it was you yourself who said he could have relaxed a bit and not gone in to him therefore quite as hard as he did, but by that point on the video it is arguable Scruton was already looking away, to his left, with head turned aside, so I'm not certain he even saw the ball go. I have jogged the video about a bit to see if I can satisfy myself whether he looked away before the ball went, it is just about the same moment, and I can't decide either way.

Also, the late challenge on the kicker is no longer an automatic yellow. A good rule change.

Interesting thing for me is that YOu didn't think it was high, but as I said previously, a very experienced and top official, with benefit of VR replays, analysed it and didn't think it was high. So where does this leave his judgment?

I am surprised at this. When it is shown in slow motion it looks late, but you have to remember at full speed, a second earlier and it would have been perfect timing.

For me i don't think there was contact with the head at first impact. Maybe i am biased but also defended Chase who i thought was hung drawn and quartered well before the Monday review.

I do find it worrying that one of our most experienced refs looked at the same video the review panel did, yet come to completely different conclusions.

When it comes the the hearing he will be found guilty (or not) with regards to making contact with the head. IF he is found guilty, the timing of the tackle will be put forward as an 'aggravating factor" which influences the sanction. IF he is found not guilty of contact with the head this "aggravating factor" will be irrelevant.

Could he get a ban just for the late hit? Or is the point of impact the issue here?

No, the charge is making contact with the head with his shoulder. The timing of the tackle is an aggravating factor IF he is found guilty of the charge.

It's actually a bit of a farce that an experienced referee has seeked the advice of another highly experienced referee to check various replays and was advised that 'there was nothing in it'.

You couldn't make it up!

Oh so is it just contact with the head that can potentially career or life threatening injuries?

No, but contact with the head is more likely to cause brain injury than contact with any other part of the body, owing to the fact it is where the brain is located.

So the charge is basically because of the respective sizes of he players? Had O'Brien been taller it would not be an issue? Weird.

The size of the players has never been taken into consideration, it is the responsibility of the tackler to ensure they do not make contact with the head. I think it is why Rob Burrow is so effective.

Does he not have a head?

Oh well; if nothing else I was right about everything except scruton not being cited.
The irony if being called a chump and accused of playing the victim card by bulls fans is not lost on me at all at this point.

I believe he does, but the surface area below it is much smaller than most and players really have to bend their back to get to it.

Thats alright then. The initial impact is very much shoulder to shoulder.

A direct shoulder>head impact would have seen the head moving away from the shoulder. Instead there was a whiplash type effect where O'briens head moves towards Scrutons shoulder.

Unfortunately, it is not only the initial impact that is looked at. If they decide contact with the head is made it doesn't really matter if the initial contact was elsewhere.

He's tweeted that he is going to fight his case. No early plea. His disciplinary record is good (mitigating) - hopefully not needed.

The disturbing thing about shoulder charges over the last 3 rounds is that they have all been subject to trial by media. Stevo, Eddie & Phil have all judged the severity of each tackle first and pronounced the verdict to the tv audience.

Conspiracy theorists might argue that this is all part of trying to introduce a ban on shoulder charges in SL, to mimic the NRL, without the RFL having to lose face and admit they are playing poodle to the NRL?

If they were right, then you might expect the disciplinary to be totally un-moved by any plea in mitigation.

The mute point here is whether the RFL disciplinary will decide that the officials and the video referee were all right on the day or they were all wrong.

That's a good point.

If the beak decides Scrutes is guilty, its a kick in the nuts for Mr Ganson And Mr Silverwood, as well as the touchies.

Ho hum.

For me, the clincher was that we did not see half the Cas pack pile in to bray hell out of Scrutes. Indeed, we saw no hint of the usual (and understandable) response when one of your mates has just been decked unreasonably. Deacs used to get clattered like that regularly during games. We never saw a procession of big opposition fellas beating a trail to Rot Hall the following Tuesday then, and nor IMO should we on this occasion. It was NOT a deliberate off-the-ball clattering. Had it been, we could have had no complaints.

But if minds are already made up...?

The NRL ruling I reckon will be rescinded, the ruling reworked or the Refs modify the way they look at it, there were two incidents in the NRL All Stars match, Inglis wasn't pinged cause he was static and Rose was cause he was moving! It will be interesting to see if the NRL Refs heed the call to speed up the PTB by various Coachs! One noticable positive during that match and I hope it continues was the lack of referral to the Video Ref! So we shall see if having an ex Coach in charge of the Refs has the good outcome everyone wants. I hope so as it could mean bye bye Cummings! Well Maybe not!! www.nrl.com/rlif-bans-shoulder-c ... fault.aspx Union will be the only real contact sport left (won't inc NFL to much padding!)

The NRL ruling I reckon will be rescinded, the ruling reworked or the Refs modify the way they look at it, there were two incidents in the NRL All Stars match, Inglis wasn't pinged cause he was static and Rose was cause he was moving! It will be interesting to see if the NRL Refs heed the call to speed up the PTB by various Coachs! One noticable positive during that match and I hope it continues was the lack of referral to the Video Ref! So we shall see if having an ex Coach in charge of the Refs has the good outcome everyone wants. I hope so as it could mean bye bye Cummings! Well Maybe not!! www.nrl.com/rlif-bans-shoulder-c ... fault.aspx Union will be the only real contact sport left (won't inc NFL to much padding!)

The charge is strike to the head, they AFAIK haven't stated whether they considered it late or not. Perhaps when the judgement is made they will comment. Most seem now to graciously accept it was late, IMO it was deliberately late because when I saw the replays you can see Scruton lining O'Brien up to hit him with the upper part of his chest/shoulder. After the impact Scruton spins round with the force of the impact. A classic textbook big hit but delivered late.

It was. Called by John Kear on first replay, backed up by Clarke, then the 2 muppets.

The movement of the head is from O'Brien towards Scruton, so Scruton hit shoulder to shoulder and then O'Brien tries to head butt his shoulder.

A bit like the disciplinary panel ignoring the ruling of Tim Roby who was stood 3 yards and lookng directly at the Chase on Hardaker tackle and ruled a knock on.



Again, a bit like the Leeds pack who didn't "pile in" when Chase hit Hardaker. Surely the reaction of the players on the field as well as the match officials who've seen it live should lend weight to what the "punishment" should be?