No it wouldn't. If you put your arms on your stomach, does that cover your chest? I'm actually sat here now doing it (sad I know) and my chest is still visible enough for someone to hit with their head if they ran at me. Your arms don't cover all of your chest unless you were popeye.

Far as I am aware the offence is contact to the head, so it doesn't really matter what the point of contact was!!

There is a faction, in our game, which confuses things like a prop barging in to a half back who has just passed the ball, a player throwing himself at a kicker, players kicking out at the ball as a try has been scored, lazy high tackles etc, with the hardness needed to play it, which comes from two props charging full pelt, full blooded tackles etc.

Id be happy to see things like that kicked out of the game, what Wilkes did wasn’t ‘hard’ it wasn’t what makes our game ‘tough’ I don’t want to pick on Wilkes, he isn’t a bad player or dirty player, im just using him as an example, but im all in favour of getting rid of these cheap hits from our game. Especially when it comes to scoring a try where the full back seems to have carte blanche to do whatever to stop the try being scored, you see some efforts from fullbacks which are barely mentioned which would be straight red further up the pitch.

first i would say that from his elbows you can see that his arms arent across his stomach, they are pointing upwards which would put it across his chest, on the second image you can quite clearly see his near side arm on his chest and i dont doubt some of the impact would be on the chest, but it would be luck of freakish proportions had he managed to fit his head exactly between his arms, they dont cover all of your chest but i think it would be difficult to fit two forearms and head in any chest (except maybe lola ferrari's)

But also, you must admit, it would be very very difficult for someone to headbutt your chest without first impacting the arms you have across your stomach.

I thought at the time that if Wilkes was guilty of anything, it was of being a touch late; I thought the same after I watched it back when I got home, and those clips have just confirmed it.

I expect he'll get 1 match as it's the offence du jour, but it's clear that this is a storm in a topical tea-cup.

Are you actually watching the same clip?



Which forearm are you suggesting does the damage? His left? Not possible. The elbow is down by the waist and the arm is diagonally across the chest. The head is above the arm. The right forearm - also not possible. The right elbow is also too low, the arm tucked in and besides the head is too far away.

Despite what you think you're seeing, the position of the elbows are the determining factor and the forearms simply go into the Burrow's chest. His head actually impacts just above the 'V' formed by Wilkes' left arm, into the chest/shoulder. No elbow or forearm impacts the head at all.

Finally, there is only one impact. You're watching it vastly slowed down. All you're seeing is the impact followed by his head moving up Wilkes' shoulder as the collision follows through.

I really don't know why I'm arguing - the pictures speak for themselves when watched together. If you think you see a guilty forearm in one clip watch the other and it is ruled out.

Wilkes found guilty, 1 match

Webb pleaded guilty, 2 matches.

All sounds pretty much spot on from what I saw, just a shame Webb wasn't sent off at the time as he should have been.

Yeah I thought that, Wakey didnt need it in the end, but if they had lost I can imagine some ppl being disappointed if they thought that Leeds deserved to be down to 12 men.

I suppose in the grand scheme of the game it didnt make a difference in the end though.

Mcdermott took him off probably to prevent that from happening. I think I speak on behalf of every one who is connected with the Super LEague (including Leeds Rhinos) but thank you very much for the memories Brent but now is the time to simply go away with a capitol F Off!

Is he taking Wilkes with him? Big tough prop, delivering cheap shots on half backs after the ball has gone? Just what the game needs.

Seemed more clumsy and accidental than anything else, and with a one game ban rather than two it would seem the board thought so too.

Is he known as being a dirty player (I dont know all that much about the guy).

Why would he need to take Wilkes with him

? although he has always had this petulant side to to his game such as the silly penalties (especially the ones that he did before BM took him off) and the mouthing off, it was easily forgotten or accepted because on his day he was brilliant. Now it is like watching a boxer who should have retired but still carries on. IMO he won't play for Leeds again after BM took him off on Monday night.

Staying on subject, I can see Westerman having a little break over the next couple of weeks. Very naughty, throwing the leading shoulder into Lauaki's face, was very lucky to stay on the field bearing in mind some decisions in recent weeks. If Childs had had a clear view I expect he would have walked.

Fortunately Lauaki's a tough cookie & was up & about a few minutes later.

Nothing at all wrong with the tackle. Lauaki ducks into the challenge and is also on the small side for a prop. Had he been a regulation "prop size" the tackle would have impacted his chest. Move on nothing to see here, Westerman is guilty of nothing other than commiting to a challenge where someone smaller ducks into him.

It was unintentional by Westerman imo, Lauaki had been tackled low and so was falling in to it, Westerman was clumsy perhaps, but I think Lauaki was just unlucky. That said I think he will get a game ban and I wont be complaining.

There was no contact with Westerman's shoulder. He used his upper arm; stiff arm tackle was my view of it
.

Yet I seen Hock lead minimum twice with his forearm / elbow tonight? I don't mind the aggression and that's his style but I feel Hock could be picked up every hit up if the ref wanted too.

Think it was his bicep mate, seemed to hurt himself as much as he hurt the caveman. It's all subjective, intent, speed of collision, angle of collision, and unfortunately the reputation and standing of the players involved. Had it been been Bailey on Tomkins it would be a ten match suspension, had it been O'Loughlin on say someone like Luke Robinson..............well, you know the rest.

Classy stuff that.

It was not even a penalty never mind on report!

The player was tackled low and fell into the bicep of the defender who was looking to wrap him him up.

I am getting concerned about some of the decisions I have seen in the last few weeks.

The RFL need to bring in the panel of ex players they have and issue a revised directive on this point before it turns into tick and pass!

+1

That's been the gist of the discussion on this thread - it doesn't matter what you hit the head with, if you make contact (according to modern rules) you're guilty of 'attacking' the head. It's clear he leads with the shoulder (as acknowledged by all commentators) and whether the contact with the head was deliberate or not, it's reckless at best (according to modern rules). He'll kop a 1-2 game ban, guaranteed.

Of course, when Burrow ducks into the tackle and kops a smack round the chops it's never his fault.




So did Lynch - blatantly on at least 3 occasions. From memory once on Carmont and then a couple of others - but to be fair it looked like Lynch was one of the only Hull forwards up for a real battle and he was putting it in (him and Shrek). Hock did nothing illegal any more than several other players tonight.

We'll be seeing every high tackle given a 1 match ban before too long I reckon, and then be watching touch and pass by the end of next season just in case someone gets injured.

The RFL seem to agree with me considering he was found guilty [iIn accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade B offence (Strikes – Strikes with hand or arm).[/i

Not quite as clear cut as you'd like to think. That's simply the Grade they've assigned to the incident, whereas what they actually summarise the incident as is:

There's no doubt his hands and arms were involved in the overall collision, but it's painfully clear to anyone with an ounce of sense that point of collision with the head is the shoulder/upper arm/chest. But we've been through that.

And the player's submission (which was accepted and taken into account):


Anyway, time to move on. What did you think of Westerman's hit last night? Forearm or shoulder?