According to the RFL though "Player takes hold of leg of opponent in order to complete tackle. Does not take leg beyond natural range of movement."

So forcing someone into the splits is completely natural, the disciplinary would think again if someone tried it on them.

There appears to be quite a few of these "natural range of movement" reports this week.

Cunningham not happy with smiths comments after game. Wonder if he's seen the pics on Twitter! www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... ans-injury

Cunningham not happy with smiths comments after game. Wonder if he's seen the pics on Twitter! www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... ans-injury

Well kc had time to put his brain in gear and still failed. Where does smith say anything regarding saints players or anyone trying to deliberately injure someone? He's pointing out that certain tackling techniques, not just the cannonball, need looking at by the rfl and he's right. Deliberate or not, in an effort to slow the ptb down by all teams some tackling methods are leading to unnecessary injuries.

Yes i agree with Cunningham it's sour grapes from TS trying to protect players from lenghy injuries , what a whopper

"None of my players intentionally go out to do anything to anybody. That just isn't how I am as a coach. If a player did that, then he wouldn't be playing the week after.


And yet masoe keeps hitting halfbaxks and players in the back again and again after the ball has gone.

There were 3 players in that tackle, so I assume Warrington are accusing all 3 players in those 2-3 seconds of co-ordinating the tackle to put him into that position.

This is part of the Wrestling technique that has come into the game, the player with the ball resists going down, the players pull and tug the play to pull them to ground. No one is coordinating the player into this position, it was just the result of all those players in the tackle doing their best to both effect and resist the tackle.

If there was something in it the RFL would have no issue in bringing Saints before the beak. Amor got pinged for a crusher tackle and did we moan about it? No Saints fans generally said it was clumsy but he deserved the 2 matches.

So at which training session did those 3 players decided to get together to coordinate this intricate tackle? And Why did they pick Evans as opposed to Hill to take out of the game?

Are you an idiot, or just pretending to be one!
If you read Smiths comments not once does he say it's deliberate, and I agree with his comments, it could have been any player on the pitch including any saints player, player welfare is of paramount importance so any technique that potentially could injure needs to be looked at. Take your red and white tinted glasses of fool!

No saints fan or coach seem capable of reading smith's quote correctly. It's a little embarrassing to be honest.

Oh c'mon. You must know your coach better than that by now. Smith is never direct in any of his criticisms. He is like McDermott of Leeds for that. Smith will slip in a dig rather than take the blunt approach. It was quite clear to anyone listening that Smith was criticising that particular tackle otherwise why on earth should he refer to it specifically?

For what it's worth I think Cunningham was too blunt in his response and he comes across as a tad arrogant at present, which is unfortunate. I would imagine a season in charge will change that. But I do agree that it was a little unprofessional of Smith to highlight a specific tackle and insinuate that there was something particular about that tackle. If he wants to raise a disciplinary matter then he does so with the RFL; not in the media.

He wasn't, he was ranting about that one incident in particular. If he thinks there was any intent to cause injury he's way off the mark. It was unusual for Smith, he's not usually like that. There is a huge difference between what Saints did to Evans and things like cannonball tackles or chicken wings. I've watched the game for 30 years now and have never seen an injury like Evans's. It was a freak outcome to what isn't generally a dangerous technique. Everyone team does it in modern rugby league, you lift the leg to turn the player to face him away from your own line with the intention of slowing the play the ball down. It happens when the ball carrier has lost momentum and is stopped or stopping.

Smith is just wrong on this one. He himself had his own angelic troops doing wrestling training on Sky Sports News before the start of this season.

Like talking to a brickwall.

Smith doesn't moan about the particular tackle during the game but the tackle technique in general. Read his quote numbnuts.

Also, the style we practiced in preseason was getting off the floor quicker, watch the video.

Bingo.

So you're admitting he wasn't moaning about the tackle outright, so now you're trying to tell us you can read Smith's thoughts?

Jeeze, even when you put another one of our players out of action for months you still make it so that your team is the victim.

Love the insults. I get the point you are making, but he is clearly talking about this incident, saying the technique they used is likely to cause injury and it's a nasty technique. There is a clear link to intent there, no matter how you try to wrap it up like a politicians PR team. My point is that it's not a dangerous technique, Warrington players do it, players from all teams do it and the injury to Ben was a freak injury. This really is a nothing incident.

The issue here is that TS has raised this with the RFL and they have decided that they do not want to do anything to stop these wrestling techniques. We are continually seeing players being held up by two opponents to allow one or more players to come in and wrestle them. What happened to tackling someone and taking them to ground?

Season over according to TS on the Super League Show.

When was the last time someone suffered an injury because of a 'wishbone tackle', as he described it? I can't think of any at all from memory.

Lifting the legs of a standing player to get them to ground has been around for ages and I don't see why that's any more dangerous than a standard tackle? It's likely that a Warrington player will do this in their match this weekend.

I find his comments a little over the top. What does he want the RFL to do exactly? Ban defenders from touching legs in the tackle? Talk about being over cautious. Let's just stop tackling and just play tag.

It was just a compete accident and I don't know why he found it necessary to even bring it up straight after the game. That's probably why Cunningham was so defensive about it.

Hope Evans has a good recovery. Those pics look nasty.

I think the underlying problem lies with the RFL, if you remember about 4 years ago they wanted to stop these blow out scores in Superleague so they allowed the refs to police a much slower play the ball in the hope defences would be set and we would see less opportunites for teams to get momentum for long periods.

The Wigoons then took it one level level further with wrestling technique on joints and a slower exit from the play the ball.

We probably need to revert to a much quicker play the ball to reduce the Evans incidents occuring on a regular basis. Will the RFL do this or will they wait for more injuries before they start to take action.

Devils advocate here.

Is it possible that Ben didn't help himself by resisting being tackled to the floor.
At the time I remember thinking that he was getting himself in a more and more Awkward position as the tackle went on.

Maybe, with hindsight, he should have succumbed to the tackle earlier got up and played the ball.

Trying to stay on your feet with 3 big defenders hanging on to you is never going to end well.

I wish Ben a speedy and full recovery.

He has had some wretched bad luck with injuries.

He was playing some really good stuff before injury last year and I was looking forward to him getting back to that form again this year.

I can understand Tony Smith's point of view with regard to protecting players from long & serious injury & maybe a directive from the RFL is needed (Judderman) to all the clubs & referees. It is more important than ever now with the "increased intensity" & since the demise of the academy system most clubs usable squads are already depleted. None of us would be happy to turn up to watch the play offs to find competing teams made up of under 16s because their main players were injured.

This issue has arisen out of the ball carriers struggle to stay upright and prove his strength. This allows weird placement of limbs, including adverse pressure where its not welcome and also helps teams create the cannonball tackle. May be the clubs take this into their own hands by coaching the ball carrier to hit or be hit by the first defender and go to ground, then struggle like mad on the floor to get up and play the ball?

Proving your strength and staying upright gains nothing from the officials whereas hit the defensive line land on your front and get up at speed to play the ball gets you a penalty if there is interference of any kind. Many players can hit the defensive and then go to ground when it suits like near the touch or coming out of the in goal so why not in the middle?

they can, but that will be called a surrender tackle and the defenders get a bit more leeway to take their time getting off, more so in the case of multiple defenders (this is where wigan excelled against us last year)

In terms the leg lifting, this one was a poor decision by wilkin, it wouldn't surprise me if if it disapeared for a few weeks after this injrury, in twenty years of watching this sport i have never heard of anyone suffering from a ruptured hamstring like this. But the leg lifting in general, not so much the lifting to collapse but the lifting and turning that you see, especially the lifting the leg of a grounded attacker and draggin it around so he faces the wrong way, its done to slow the ptb and also increases chances of a penalty for facing the wrong way whilst playing it, for me, that is no different than the penalties that get given for 'clocking' players, its so obvious, it should be a straight penalty.