But it [iwas[/i on Burrow. Are you suggesting that Wilkes thought he was running at Peacock? Is he that stupid? It was late, the ball had gone and the whereabouts of Burrow's head have been well known in the game for more than a decade now, if it wasn't deliberate it was certainly incredibly reckless so please don't try and excuse it by claiming optical illusions or shape shifting on the part of the wee man.

Burrow took the ball right up to the defensive line so is likely to get clattered. All i said is i don't think it was a deliberate attack to the head. Reckless may be and if the RFL concur he will probably get a 1 game ban.

First off you stated that on anyone else it wouldn't have been a head shot, I was merely observing that that is completely irrelevant, secondly Wilkes took two steps after the ball had been passed and clocked him in the head so in that respect the line came to Burrow, and yes Burrow is always likely to get clattered, but not without the ball and not in the face. He could have had a yellow just for the late hit, but if he doesn't cop at least two games for that I'd be very disappointed.

Obviously we will never know but, especially after sending Puletua off, I think Wilkes would have also seen red if they hadnt bottled it before and left Webb on.

Whilst I agree that Burrow is a lot smaller than the average player, contact with his head was still made and therefore should be a red card. The RFL obviously deemed Puletua's to be the correct decision as they gave him a ban, so why just a week later is the same offence not a sending off.

Think we need this clarifying now and it needs to be ruled that any tackle making contact with a player's head is either a sending off or it isnt, as the consistency of decisions (even from the same referee's) is a joke at the moment

I watched the Olympic women's handball last night. There were bigger challenges in a supposedly non-contact sport between girls that went unpunished, that would have resulted in a penalty in Super League. One girl stiff arm tackled someone in the jaw, which would have resulted in a red card for sure under some of the RL refs, and certainly a multiple game ban to follow. She got a 2 minute sin bin and it wasn't mentioned again.

There was nothing wrong with Wilkes on Burrow, there was nothing wrong with the Puletua challenge last week. Yes, we need to cut out the mindless violence and deliberate acts of foul play - but a robust tackle is and should be part of the game.

RL is getting soft.

There was nothing wrong with Wilkes on Burrow, there was nothing wrong with the Puletua challenge last week. Yes, we need to cut out the mindless violence and deliberate acts of foul play - but a robust tackle is and should be part of the game.

RL is getting soft.'"

This.

The way I see it Webb's was nearly as bad as what happened with Inglis last week, he copped a three match ban after appeal.

The Burrow incident would prob not have been an incident if Burrow was of average RL height. Im not saying he should be but at the end of the day the guy couldnt get out the way and tucked his arms in, presumably to stop it looking like he tackles someone without the ball and just sheer reaction to someone running at you.

Burrow came off second best, with the ground itself prob causing nearly as much harm as the person that he ran straight into did.

If he is gonna pass late and try sucking in defenders, stuff like that will happen, just like it usually does to a lesser degree and just like kickers get taken late etc etc.

Its a game of RL and sometimes this things happen, its just the way.

Yes it does sometimes, it was nothing eh, just like the famous Carl Ablett challenge on Sam Tomkins. We all knew Abletts' tackle bore no malice yet he copped a 3 game ban because it was Ratboy involved. Three games for Wilkes minimum if we go by the Tomkins yardstick.

hmmm, I dont think you understood my point, taking someone out deliberatly and doing it wrongly (ie, Webb, or Ablett from your example) is different to two players running at each other and coliding in a way that hurts one of them.

While its bad, its the way of things that Burrows against a prop forward in that situation would always come off second best, whereas Ablett ran in and took Tomkins out while he practically stood still catching a ball if I remember right.

Burrows took the risk of trying to suck in a prop to create a gap, and the prop hit him whereas Kirmond had already kicked the ball. The RFL are going to have to decide whether Webb deliberatly jumped at him to stop him collecting the kick / or just plain do damage, or whether he was indeed trying to block the kick and then decide on an outcome.

With the Burrows incident it becomes a question of whether he could have peeled off before hitting him, or if he did anything to make the situation worse.

That leads to several interesting questions, could he have moved (bearing in mind he may have believed Burrows was going to dummy) and could he have positioned his arms differently.

But thats just my opinion on what I would look at. I doubt that Webb's little performances later on in the match did him any favours though.

If they decide that players hit like Rob does constitute a punishment its going to be interesting though. Do they in that case make it the same when a player kicks and then in taken out? Do they apply it across the board that when someone delays a pass but gets hit as it goes away, they take the play back?

A lot of ex players and players are saying the game in going soft what with all the talk about shoulder charging etc, this would probably make it worse.

Btw, in the incident with Tomkins, several squad mates saw something wrong and chose to step in, with Burrows no one batted an eye lid till he didnt get up, that leads me to think that they didnt see anything that malicious and fully expected to play on with Rob getting back to his feet after coming off second best.

Whilst there are many incidents within a game that are not so clear cut in terms of foul/no foul, deliberate/accidental the onus is on the defender/s to make sure their tackle does not illegally harm the attacking player. A risk assessment if you like, you go in swinging your arms around/above the chest area then there is a greater liklihood of there being illegal contact.
When it is against shorter players that risk is CLEARLY even greater so the onus falls absolutely on the defender to lessen the chance of harm occuring(like tackling around the mid-riff for instance..who'd thunk it!) by not doing so you have recklessly decided not to change what you are doing (by not considering your actions or even worse doing it deliberately)

As for the comment regarding the ground making things worse, please, how ridiculous. it's a bit like saying a pedestrian got run over by a car but it was made worse by the road for being there... If the car hadn't have hit the ped then there would have never have being the incident in the first place.
Hope the dirty little mong gets a 2/3 match ban

No one seriously expects Wilkes to be punished because hit burrow a little late, nobody expects Webb to be punished because he hit him a fraction after he kicked the ball.

Wilkes should be punished because regardless of what Burrow was doing, Wilkes effected a tackle by hitting a player in the face with his elbow after the ball had been passed and Webb because he made general contact with the head

Neither were a shoulder charge, nor an attempt on a shoulder charge, one was a block/chargedown which went too high and hit a guy in the head, one was a poorly attempted tackle which resulted in a player getting an elbow to the head, both were poor challenges, don’t think either were particularly malicious but both were against the rules and quite clearly dangerous.

Its nothing to do with the game going soft, nothing to do with a change in the game or the banning of a shoulder charge both are already against the rules and have been outlawed and have been at least since I first played the game 20 years ago.

Meanwhile back in the NRL it appears from the Rabbitohs game that the rules over there have been changed again, if you charge into and collide with the kicker, it is a penalty. You cannot charge the kicker. You can only attempt to tackle the kicker. This seems a reasonable rule change to me, as plenty of times you see late and cheap shots on the kicker with the ready made (but in 99% cases risible) excuse "he was committed".

Shame the NRL just does these things, ignoring this side of the planet. Why they and the RFL can't find a way to all play to the same rules is a scandal, but the NRL really couldn't care less about the sport elsewhere.

That's a rule that should be brought in over here. It's not right that a forward can just run right at a halfback and clean him out after kicking the ball with no intent other than to injure the kicker and have it deemed legal.

In the Wigan vs Cas game Danny Orr went off with a dead leg after Mike McIlorum caught him with his hip after the kick. Perfectly legal as it stands but I don't see why it should be. It's the point when a player is most vulnerable and is much more likely to pick up an injury.

Wilkes' elbow was nowhere near Burrow's head. In fact, Wilkes has his elbows down and his forearms crossed in front of him. Burrow's head actually hits the shoulder. It looks like a combination of impact of the head on the shoulder and the general collision is what's stunned him.


Good idea, will be interesting to see how that rule develops. The late hit is normally a chance for the defender to put in a smash with little effort. Advancing defenders will now either pull out or put in a full-blooded arms-round tackle - still on a prone man, which still leaves him open to the hit.

No it doesn’t, Wilkes has his arms crossed in front of him, he runs forward toward Burrow, Burrow runs towards the lines and passes, Wilkes charges in to him. The combination of height difference, Burrow bending as he passes ball exacerbating it, and the fact they are pretty much square on when the impact happens means that Burrow is knocked unconscious from a late hit with the forearm/elbow. I don’t believe it was malicious or deliberate but it quite clearly dangerous, we know it was dangerous because a player ended up unconscious.

he will probably get a one match ban for it being late, clumsy and dangerous.

This is the moment of first impact. You can see clearly see Wilkes' sleeve and upper arm pointing down, and his left elbow actually making contact with Burrow's shoulder.



And another angle at the moment of impact. Burrow's head is clearly impacting with the upper chest/shoulder, his right elbow nice and low.



It was a questionable challenge, that's for sure, but it wasn't an attack to the head and certainly not with the elbow.

You are clearly a couple of moments past the point of impact in those photos, Burrow is rising, and as you can see Wilkes has his arms crossed diagonally across his chest and you can quite clearly on the 2nd picture Burrows impact is with the forearm across the chest, im happy to accept the contact was with the forearm in the face elbow to the shoulder, frankly its a distinction without a difference. You can legally tackle with the forearm as much as you can with the elbow.

What your pictures do prove is, indisputedly he doesnt hit him with the shoulder and its not a shoulder charge.

Its not a Terry Newton or Mick Cassidy house attack to the head, its a clumsy, late and dangerous tackle that is and always has been illegal.

Agreed!! End of story really

Ok, let's have a look at the point of impact then.

You are correct, Burrow is rising, and rises past the level of elbow/forearm into Wilkes' left shoulder. Remember, Wilkes' forearms are not across his chest, they are pointing upwards from the waist.

The important thing is to look at Wilkes' elbows in both clips. Both are down by his sides. Then think about where the forearms could only be. Then look where Burrow's head makes impact, on Wilkes' upper left side. It's physically impossible for contact to be with the elbow or forearm.



This angle also shows Wilkes' right elbow down and his left hand popping up from the left arm rising from the waist, which then goes into Burrow's chest.

You could say it looks like there might be impact with part of the left forearm - but as you look at this clip look also at the position of the left elbow in the first clip and it's obvious the forearm cannot impact the head. It also shows that Burrow's head impacts on Wilkes' left side, which makes it even less a possibility.



Bear in mind the deltoids/triceps/pectorals of a RL professional are probably almost as hard as bone, certainly hard enough to knock someone out if impacted hard with the head, and that's what's happened. Both elbows are down and both forearms are too low to hit the head.

It was made worse because Burrows was caught well off balance, looking at the slow-mo though it looks like the thing that he'll get done for if anything is being late.

You have a very strange body if your forearms are crossed, infront of you, pointing upwards means they arent across your chest but your shoulders are. It is physically impossible, unless you are an orangutan, for your arms to be crossed, at your waist


no it isnt, if i cross my arms making an X shape, then my forearms would crossed, on my chest, with my elbows just a little in from my side.




You can see it, you can see on the second clip, that Wilkes arm is crossed in front of his body, you can see his hand hit Burrows shoulder, you can see his arm is diagonal, you can see on the first impact the Burrow, bending to pass and rising, has his bottom jaw roughly level with his shoulder, you can see Wilkes hand hit Burrows shoulder, you can even see on his near side arm, that his arm, curled up, is the height of Burrow's shoulder on the 2nd impact, which is higher than where his jaw was on the first impact. Look at the very first frame of that clip, you can quite clearly see Burrow's chin is lower than his shoulder, and you can quite clearly see that Wilkes near side arm is higher than Burrows shoulder, you can also see Wilkes far side arm, coming across which would put his forearm, across his chest, which is Burrows head height on the first impact. You can actually see Burrow's head bounce back before he impacts with the chest

TBF IMHO it looks like Burrow's head hits the chest of Wilkes and not the arm or shoulder.

his arms are in front of him, it would be impossible.

hey mate, that rule regarding the kicker has been in place at least 2 seasons now in the nrl, not too sure why the rfl haven't brought it in yet!!