For those in the know, can someone explain the difference between the tackles of Westwood and Fakir. From what I saw, they both hit the opponent in the mush. Why is one graded higher than the other?

Have a read of this: www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/On%2 ... 202009.doc Looks like Benny will cop the full 5 matches: Quote there is no place in the game for players who jeopardise the safety of others by intentional, dangerous or malicious acts'" Quote 2.3 AGGRAVATING FACTORS Previous Record Violence ... Injury caused ...'" Quote 1Previous Record '"

Have a read of this: www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/On%2 ... 202009.doc Looks like Benny will cop the full 5 matches: Quote there is no place in the game for players who jeopardise the safety of others by intentional, dangerous or malicious acts'" Quote 2.3 AGGRAVATING FACTORS Previous Record Violence ... Injury caused ...'" Quote 1Previous Record '"

Looking at the document, seems Fakir is accused of being reckless whilst Westwood of being intentional.

Mmm.

So how do they know it's intentional?

Again, as I said before, there didn't seem anymore intent in the Westwood tackle than the Fakir one. If I remember correctly, Westwoods head went past the right shoulder of Carlaw and his arm followed, he wasn't even looking at Carlaw when he hit him.

Of course, I'm not stupid enough to think that if he isn't looking he can't intend to do it, it's just that I can't understand how they can come to the conclusion that Westwood intended to smash him and Fakir didn't.

I suppose that's why they have a hearing to put there case.

On a side point, it always annoys me when Stevo says he didn't pull the ball out deliberately because he wasn't looking at it, as if a rugby player doesn't know what a ball feels like when he has his hand all over it.

The fact that Westwood followed him to the ground and whispered something to the effect of "Have that" in is ear would appear to suggest some intent!!

It certainly won't help in his defence!!

I'll go for 4 games, a fine and a warning on future conduct

He is not a persistant offender by any means.

And then straight to Carvell & slapped him on the chest & game a similar comment.

Quote ="SEB"Have a read of this: www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/On%2 ... 202009.doc Looks like Benny will cop the full 5 matches:'" 2.1 Underlying Principles Rugby League is a hard, fast, contact sport played at professional level by athletic players. In a sport with high speed collisions there will always be injuries and players take part with this knowledge. Disciplinary system is not intended to sanitise the sport. However there is no place in the game for players who jeopardise the safety of others by intentional, dangerous or malicious acts. The disciplinary system must support and protect match officials

Quote ="SEB"Have a read of this: www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/On%2 ... 202009.doc Looks like Benny will cop the full 5 matches:'" 2.1 Underlying Principles Rugby League is a hard, fast, contact sport played at professional level by athletic players. In a sport with high speed collisions there will always be injuries and players take part with this knowledge. Disciplinary system is not intended to sanitise the sport. However there is no place in the game for players who jeopardise the safety of others by intentional, dangerous or malicious acts. The disciplinary system must support and protect match officials

Not trying to defend Benny as it was a bad 'un, but when you think about it, the law of averages will dictate he is going to get the odd one wrong purely by the amount of tackling he does.

I never said he didn't intend to hit hard, it's about the intent to hit him straight in the mush. It's debatable whether at that time Westwood knew where he hit him, just that he hit him and he stayed down.

Just because Morley didn't go to ground and didn't give Fakir or anyone else the opportunity to whisper sweet nothings, does that imply there was less intent?

Why should any injury sustained to the tackled player have any relevance to the punishment? So in a hyperthetical match and all other things being hyperthetically equal...

Rob Burrow lands a high hit (assuming he could reach) on Carvell and although it was a comparitive tap he just manages to hit the 'sweet spot' and knock him out cold.
In the same hypethetical match, Morley hits Webb with everything, but Webb has a thick skull and although a little groggy manages to stay on his feet.

Should Burrow receive the greater punishment simply because his 'victim' had a 'glass jaw'?

Sorry but thats rubbish. It was a shocker, it was deliberate and it was followed by a ridiculous episode of childish behaviour. I wasn't comparing it to any other incident. He should have been sent off and had he been I doubt we would have had "other incidents" to mention. Hopefully be will be punished accordingly, take his punishment like a man and perhaps in the future behave more like one!!

How can it be rubbish? Your opinion carries no greater susbtance than keith's. My snapshot view was that he caught the shoulder of Carlaw, then ended up catching him square in the face.

From a nuetrals point of view there was no 'shoulder' invovled.....it was straight in the mush......would expect a 3 game ban.

That is my opinion aswell TBH

Look at it again then!

I didn't mean to belittle a post sorry so I apologise for using the word rubbish. But that was the worst I'd seen for a long time and to try and defend it my opinion is wrong.

Wooooooooooooooa

Before we carry on, let's get one thing straight. I'm not debating whether it was a bad one or not, it is clear it is, he caught him in the jaw, there is no doubt.

What I'm questioning is, how do the RL know whether intent was there or not? There's only one person who can answer that question, every thing else is opinion.

Fakir's was very similar, yet according to the RL, that wasn't intentional, I want it explaining how they differentiate before they speak to all parties.

I don't know whether it was intentional or not, neither do you. I suggested, that as Westwoods head, at the time of collision, was to Carlaws right shoulder, he couldn't see where his arm hit and is it so easy to define whether it hit head, chest or shoulder from his perspective, on such an impact if you can't see.

He may not come across as the sharpest knife in the box, but I doubt any player would congratulate himself or others knowing they deliberately smashed his opponent in the face in that manner.

For you to suggest him hanging over him and giving him verbal, again, did he or didn't he, doesn't mean he intended to hit him in the face, as the charge implies. I've seen many a good and clean tackle result in a player on th floor receiving verbal by his tackler.

if a warrington player was on the end of it there would be murder,there is no defence for it,intentional or reckless it was a shocker and benny deserves the ban he will get,he will now have some time to reflect on how he has let himself,the fans and the club down.
an oppotunity now opens up for someone else to get some game time in the second row,meanwhile benny can get some extra time in on the tackle bags.

As I said I wasn't referring to any other incident but I take your point and I don'y know the answer.

I can quite easily see that they have concluded that the Westwood attempt was deliberate and I was pointing out that by his "afters" he hasn't done himself any favours.

Had he apologised and helped him pick his teeth up perhaps they'd have been a bit more lenient!!

I've just re-watched the incident for the first time since seeing it at the HJ and even then I didn't see it properly as I was talking at the time (but certainly heard the impact - ouch!) Anyway, I feel Ben might have a possible defence and one I'm surprised no-one else has mentioned - that just a moment before impact, Higham tackles Carlaw around the waist with the inevitable result that his body bends around the middle and hence his head is an a lower position then when Westwood was lining him up. Have a look: www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=610

I've just re-watched the incident for the first time since seeing it at the HJ and even then I didn't see it properly as I was talking at the time (but certainly heard the impact - ouch!) Anyway, I feel Ben might have a possible defence and one I'm surprised no-one else has mentioned - that just a moment before impact, Higham tackles Carlaw around the waist with the inevitable result that his body bends around the middle and hence his head is an a lower position then when Westwood was lining him up. Have a look: www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=610

Bring back the biff.

Quote ="SEB"I've just re-watched the incident for the first time since seeing it at the HJ and even then I didn't see it properly as I was talking at the time (but certainly heard the impact - ouch!) Anyway, I feel Ben might have a possible defence and one I'm surprised no-one else has mentioned - that just a moment before impact, Higham tackles Carlaw around the waist with the inevitable result that his body bends around the middle and hence his head is an a lower position then when Westwood was lining him up. Have a look: www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=610'" i think someone did mention that over the weekend right back at the start of the witch hunt.

Quote ="SEB"I've just re-watched the incident for the first time since seeing it at the HJ and even then I didn't see it properly as I was talking at the time (but certainly heard the impact - ouch!) Anyway, I feel Ben might have a possible defence and one I'm surprised no-one else has mentioned - that just a moment before impact, Higham tackles Carlaw around the waist with the inevitable result that his body bends around the middle and hence his head is an a lower position then when Westwood was lining him up. Have a look: www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=610'" i think someone did mention that over the weekend right back at the start of the witch hunt.

Yes me. It is exactly how I saw it. The impact affected Westwoods timing. Even after he had done it he looked confused that it could be considered an illegal tackle.

When does he ever look otherwise?

See how Higham's tackle has caused Carlaw's head to lean forwards and downwards.