I know it was brave but was it sensible that Walmsley stayed on. Did he in fact make the injury worse?

What a pathetic post. Rather than just make a point, you drag up a completely unrelated point about a pretty normal tackle.

The NRL's match review co-ordinator Luke Patten confirmed the tackle was reviewed, but said “members all agreed that the actions of Paasi were not careless and did not warrant a charge”. “Firstly, the initial point of contact by Paasi was high on May’s hip/upper thigh,” Patten said in a statement to the Sydney Morning Herald. “For a tackle to be considered dangerous and spearing at the legs, the Match Review Committee must see forceful contact at or around the knee of the attacking player. “Paasi also drops to his knees at the point of contact, which we encourage players to do, and did not drop his body weight onto the back of May’s lower legs. This is one of the key indicators that we would look for in a hip-drop tackle.”

Well guess what, the MRP also decided that asiatas tackles were fine too.

What's the relevance though? Paasi was involved in a tackle where someone got injured five months ago, so therefore it's okay for a player to deliberately injure four opposition players? Lance Hohaia got sent off in a junior game, so the Ben Flower thing was okay? The Paasi tackle wasn't even inherently dangerous, tackles the hip, doesn't attack any joints, ensures he doesn't trap the legs, it's just an accident.

There will be no retrospective punishment for Asiata and I'm not calling for any either. What we need is the rules clarifying to make sure there are no more tackles like this going forward. It's already outlawed in the NRL, yet not here. That needs to be fixed. A lot of people on here need to grow up a bit. The resentment to Saints success over the years is clouding a lot of judgements, I get Leigh fans being defensive, but there's an ethical line that's been crossed with these tackles and the sport can't let it continue.

Just because a player has got injured doesn't necessarily mean there should be any bans dished out though does it.

The Knowles incident was completely different but old Wello has used that to try and get a reaction and some sympathy.

Say's who exactly, 'cry baby' Wellens ?



p.s. I hope it isn't over but I've read this nowhere.

[size=150BREAKING NEWS!!![/size

The RFL sympathises with Paul Wellens, and have decided that at the start of the 2024 season, rugby league will now become Tag rugby to cover all players welfare, and avoid injuries. The RFL also state that the Insurance premium will decrease by a significant amount, and the sport will be in healthy financial position going forward.

St Helens fans, at least those you encounter on the internet, seem to be absolute loons and totally lacking in self awareness or rational judgement. Everything is a conspiracy - you just need to go back to those embarrassing tantrums after the 2019 Cup final to see that.

Earlier this season, when Hurrell took out Myler with a shoulder to the head off the ball, for which he was red carded, they literally convinced themselves that Myler had somehow thrown himself at Hurrell and that what was a very clear red card was some sort of RFL/refereeing conspiracy.

Have they got an excess of lead in the water over there or something?

Years of something about a game for the whole family I think it is.

Only way it was different was that Knowles got 2 extra games for ending Coopers season

Quite a few people have I was told this on Sunday

Not quite.

One was a tackle against the rules of the game and one wasn't.

Didn't realise there is a time limit on nonsense.paasi targeted the knee of a player being held by two defenders.asiata made a tackle on a moving player.

Based on what medical evidence - Wilkin's 10-year training to become an orthopaedic surgeon?

Trolling?

I'm merely highlighting the fact that Saints are the masters of the grubby tackle yet you're all now out in force crying about it. I haven't seen the tackle back as I'm in Spain before heading over to watch Catalans on Saturday (just thought I'd drop that in there

) but Saints fans have no right to cry about being hard done by.

Whingeing Scousers with the old self-pity city attitude.

Really?

Case Number:
ON/355/23

Morgan Knowles #13, St Helens
Competition:
Super League

Match:
Wigan Warriors v St Helens

Match Date:
2023-04-07

Incident:
Dangerous Contact

Decision:
Charge

Charge Detail:
Law 15.1 (i)

Dangerous Contact - Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.

Grade D

So Defender (Asiata) uses any part of their body (shoulder) to twist bend or [iotherwise[/i apply pressure to the limb or limbs of any opposing player in a way that involves an unnacceptable risk of injury to that player.


Seems straight forward to me.

You've just made that Asiata charge up haven't you?

It’s not that they haven’t seen it, it’s that they’re physically incapable of objectively looking at incidents for fear of saying something sensible that might be in “benefit” of another club. It’s classic RL fans. They’re the worst sports fans in the world

It strikes me (no pun intended) that it's simply a variation on a cannonball tackle and as such should probably treated the same and outlawed.

I don't think anyone is arguing against the outlawing of the cannonball tackle. My understanding is a cannonball is a tackle to the legs of a stationary player, whereas my recollection is that both injured players were moving. It is very difficult to time a tackle to a moving players legs to hit a knee while the leg is only temporarily planted. Which is why I don't think the tackle was malicious. Unless you are banning tackling to the legs, while a player is in motion, what are you proposing?

It is very difficult to time a tackle to a moving players legs to hit a knee while the leg is only temporarily planted. Which is why I don't think the tackle was malicious.

Asiata must be an expert then, he managed it 4 times in 1 game.

No simply put his name in the definition of Rule 15.1(i) to make it easy for you to understand. Obviously failed, oh well never mind.

How do you actually know this?

What players have recently retired from a knee injury a couple of days after sustaining it?

Was he charged with that? No.

Fair point re cannonball and stationary. I don't disagree on malice either. What I'm looking for is something which would prevent direct hits to the knee area (possibly I'm asking too much?) but I really don't want to see players with serious, potentially career ending, injuries. I know I'm not alone in that.