It doesn't look bad though, and he isn't tackled at the point Austin reaches him as tomkins has escaped the first tackler which was jack Hughes. At that point tomkins could have got up and carried on if Austin and ratchford don't get to him as tackle was not complete. The tackle is awkward because of the position tomkins finds himself in, I can't see any intent to injure from our players there, nobody wants to see players injured especially serious injuries but its a contact sport. Austin had to tackle him because tackle wasn't complete.

I'm sure there will be a ban but unless other angles show something I can't see on the sky website then I think it will be harsh given he was binned for it on the pitch.

Wishing tomkins a quick recovery anyway.

Get a grip.

Turn up the volume of the sky clip at 36 seconds. Couldn't agree more

Pretty much every word.

Irrespective of whether there was intent or not, looking at the bigger picture:

2 games, 3 sin binnings
2 games probably 3 bans
2 games team disadvantaged by 30 mins

Whatever other qualities this team posesses, intelliigence isn't one they are showing much of at the moment.

I have very little confidence that a team minus Austin and Brown will have the attacking nous to continue to get results.

Pretty sure the RFL disciplinary panel looked at two of his tackles last week ( I saw one elbow to the face ) so wouldnt surprise me if he didnt get a ban.

From the Sky footage, it's it's tricky to say either way as the two contentious points of impact (elbow and knees) cannot be seen clearly from the camera angle. One thing for sure though is that the tackle wasn't completed (saddened) and without Austin's tackle (not his personal tackle!), Tompkins would have, in all likelihood, of got up and carried on.

As said, what hit where isnt clear but the RFL have a representative at each game who may be asked for input. Also, its not be stated anywhere where contact was made; that may provide details of what needs to be looked at. Looking at the incident, I wondered whether Austin's right leg came around due to the momentum of the tackle. As others have said, the need to make the tackle was legitimate and my opinion was that Maguire was actually looking for a penalty for lying on, rather than for the impact.

Ah well. Austin will probably get a ban but its nothing Tomkins hasn't done before. Distinctly remember him forearm smashing Myler in the face under the sticks a good 5-10 seconds after the ball had been touched down a fair few years ago. Not so much as a penalty given.

Only two games in and Austin already looking at a ban and you’d think with his experience he’d know better.Let’s just hope he’s not going do this regular or he could be touring Europe more than playing.

I think Austin is trying to make a mark, in a way for self preservation.. He knows that he'll be targeted every week. If he sets his stall out early on by being aggressive, it might dissuade a few grubs like Tompkins not to target him so much throughout the season.

The tackle was not complete. Austin was well within his right to complete it and we’d have been slating him if he hadn’t.

However, it seems there has been contact with the head. The duty of care rests with the tackling player.

Clumsy, not malicious, I expect a ban of some form.

Previous page, I posted that exact example.

That's not to mention his penchant for high tackles, face grabbing, kicking out and stamping on ppl, and generally grabbing players from behind and throwing them to the floor

Austin for all his class seems a bit of a grub.
An Aussie Danny Brough.

You forgot barmaid abuse

Give over

According to an article in the Hull Daily Mail today Tomkins could play for KR next weekend.

It won't be long before he gets a name and reputation if he keeps it up.

Keeps what up? 1 incident which hasn’t been adjudicated on yet?

Les Boyd came here with a "reputation" 34 years ago. He got sent off in Wire games, once, in four years. It went to disciplinary. Found not guilty.

Austin got cited for 2 things, last week.The busyboddying RFL said no problem.
Yesterday, from the coverage we've seen from South Stand cameras, show no thuggery (imo) took place. If there's coverage from the North Stand showing otherwise, then he'll be appropriately penalised.

Until then, I suggest the untwisting of knickers

From my eyes, he was completing a tackle with some aggression. No worse than the likes of Tompkin's dirty fall ons. I would never wish ill upon a player, but Joel Tompkins has received some karma here, intention or no intention from Austin. Conclusion: probably a ban for Austin; no sympathy for a grub like Tompkins.

I never said he was...I said if he keeps it up. What he gets away with, like the said Tomkins, is what opposition fans will shape his reputation with.

You said he was an Aussie Danny Brough. Seemed a bit of a grub.

I reckon it's a bit soon for any labels. Let's see what the outcome is of the disciplinary. I do suspect Austin's using offence as best form of defence though. The minute he pulled on a Wire jersey as a marquee player there was a target on the back of it. Let's ensure that's just in the eyes of the opposition players and fans though rather than our own.

If it was a late flop, surely the player wasn’t held? So no case to answer?

Can't even call it a flop. Flop is a man coming late into a completed tackle, which this wasn't. It was a tackle. The only doubt is over whether it was reckless, dangerous, malicious or unlucky. I'd go with the latter, as I was sat close to incident, and that video footage hasn't changed my mind.