After a couple of "benefit of doubt" tries awarded to Warrington, I enjoyed our fans in the Wheldon Road end singing "It's a Try" the next time a Warrington player was clearly held up over the line.
Became less funny when Warrington scored from the next play.

My bias eyes aren't what they were but does gale slip slightly before his offload? Doesn't look that bad at all to me.

Penalty nothing more.


However, what a tackle on Carney to prevent the try by Russell. That's amazing.

[url=http://s8.photobucket.com/user/wirefan/media/Screenshot_2015-07-27-23-06-28_zpsl2kkpkgo.jpg.html[/url

First contact = arm to shoulder?

Picture sums it up arm first and Bennie isn't even looking at Gale , hard to tell from poor coverage but ,I felt Gale dummies to go right then turned left and caught Bennie out but, we will see how panel view it ,I'd suggest decision will be nothing more than guess work

Depends on how the committee look at it.

On the positive

1. Judging by that picture it's not that late.
2. Benny's knees are bent, he going in for a big hit no doubt, but both players are stooping.

On the negative

1. Benny is not looking at the player, he can see the ball is gone, and follows through with the hit.
2. He's Westwood, and he plays for Warrington.

I'm guessing he'll get a two game ban. For reason 2 alone.

I read somewhere in defence of Bennie that Gale admitted he milked it.

nothing tackle...... penalty sufficient

It looked bad enough for one game on the SL show tonight. There is footage and Bennie caught Gale on left side of the jaw with a clenched hand. Bang to rights from that angle I'd say, a definite ban unless there is another video angle, which I doubt.

Watching that video it doesn't look late at all, Benny is about one step away from Gale at full pelt when the ball is passed. Gale certainly doesn't have his back to him like some were suggesting earlier.

Definitely high though, no question there, and frankly not surprising either...

It's funny because the way it was reported by the Cas lot, it sounded like a flat out attack on a defenseless half back from behind, 4 secs after the ball had gone. As it happens, it's just a love tap that comes off the shoulder, pretty much as he releases the ball. I'd like to think penalty sufficient, although I wouldn't argue with 1 match as he's been charged. 2 matches would be ridiculous given some of the things that go unpunished.

The trouble with these incidents is the inconsistency of the officials and the rules being to open. Can't we just go to a situation of players passing or kicking the ball who are hit after the ball has left there feet/hands, attacking player is sin binned?

I know there's a lot of it about and some teams would have more in the bin than on the pitch. Lets have a rule that everyone knows what the punishment is. Believe me I am not one for softening the game but the rules have to be understood by coaches, players and fans alike.

The disciplinary committee need livening up, when looking at the situation at hand, questions like "did he shoulder barge"? simple yes or no answer not a day of justification as to whether his hands and arms were above the horizontal, blah blah. The game needs to grow some balls!

We outlaw a shoulder charge but allow players every week to be taken down in cannonball tackles by trying to justify the place and direction of the hit. Cannonball tackle = ban, Shoulder charge = ban. Player making contact with the ref, should never be in a players mind to do that instead of the stupid ban stick them in the sin bin straight away, end of matter.

The Westwood/Gale thing, did Westwood contact the head its a yes or no folks. If yes its a simple red card and on report if further action is needed. Did Gale really say he was milking it? If he did then that's another issue to deal with.

The message from me is if there's an indiscretion punish it as hard as you can. That will create the consistency we all crave.

Anyway rant over, off to a disciplinary hearing for a member of staff.

Yes, of course he did. He just wanted an excuse to leave the field and take a trip to Pontefract A+E.

Technically, it cannot be anything other than late. You cannot tackle a player not in possession and gale clearly doesn't have the ball.
However, it's not ridiculously late but it is a bit late and high.
I always err towards the harsh side of penalising foul play so don't think he could complain at two games, though a one match suspension would be consistent with other incidents this season.

Totally agree, any late shot immediate sin bin. None of this "was he committed" rubbish - the onus is on the defender not to put the opposistion player at risk of unnecessary injury. Any high shot, put them in the bin. It would soon sort it out.

Just watched the Superleague Show. Wasn't there a late tackle on GOB after he had kicked the ball? Not much being said over that one.

Yea, I would imagine it has not been referred as it would have been no more than a penalty had one of the officials seen it.

One of our players cops an "unseen by the review panel " late shot nearly every week.

O'brien often seems to be a victim, I remember Nick Scruton getting him late early on when he was on loan with us. Forced him off after about five minutes.

Maybe some people are prone to getting hit whereas older heads are more able to avoid these situations by knowing which opponent is likely to do late shots. But ,on the other hand, Gaz is not really a novice any more. I remember seeing Rob Burrow copping a high one off Jamie Lyon in a CC game which was not really malicious but more to do with the height difference between the two & Burrow ducking to avoid the tackle anyway.I think Lyon got a red card.

Quote ="Rugby"This is the tackle: www.skysports.com/rugby-league/n ... due-to-ban Russell on Wire FM tomorrow morning at 8am so somebody might be able to listen and hear about his injury!'" So it wasn't a late shoulder charge to the head. It was a chop/swinging arm in the face. That's just a penalty, possibly should have been a sin-bin. Silly play from Benny but wasn't that bad at all.

Quote ="Rugby"This is the tackle: www.skysports.com/rugby-league/n ... due-to-ban Russell on Wire FM tomorrow morning at 8am so somebody might be able to listen and hear about his injury!'" So it wasn't a late shoulder charge to the head. It was a chop/swinging arm in the face. That's just a penalty, possibly should have been a sin-bin. Silly play from Benny but wasn't that bad at all.

I don't agree with that first point and I'm getting sick of players (Brough at Hudds especially) moaning about tackles being late (on his kicks) when they aren't.

If a player has already made the move to tackle an opponent and within the seconds that follow that player has moved the ball on or kicked it and then he gets creamed because the tackler has committed himself to the tackle; there's nowt wrong with that. It's a tackle after the ball has gone but it's not late.

And I would complain at two games for that from Westwood. Yes it was high and it was silly but bloody hell it wasn't that bad at all.

Did anybody listen to this - any news?

Does anyone other than Rubber Duckie in his taxi actually listen to Wire FM?

Nothing on his Twitter account about an injury