like i said.... he was penalised for the outcome, rather than the actual tackle.... if the player doesn't stoop down so quickly, hill probably gets both arms around the ball and were talking about an amazing tackle.

its fine margins.. especially when a player is diving to the floor. .. its contact with the head, buts its unfortunate... nothing more.

eye gouging and leading with the elbow into someones throat are both worse offences for me.

If you think the knock on rule still applies to a rising ball from a kick, what do you think a charge down is?

I'll give you a clue.
I've been watching RL for 40+ years.
In all that time I've watched RL, a charge down occurs, when the "charger" is in extreme close proximity to the kicker, anything else is
a) stopping the kicked ball going a lot further
b) a genuine attempt to INTERCEPT/CATCH the ball

Now, bearing in mind, I don't watch half time or full time punditry (Jon Wells is a collosal whopper), I can only rely I what I remember from the actual coverage. The Wigan player WAS NOT in extreme close proximity (as would be seen for any normal charge down), therefore, it's either one of examples a or b, as mentioned earlier.

Now, bear in mind (again, iirc) the Wigan player handled the ball at waist height or lower, even the most one-eyed resident of Poolstock Lane must admit that it's hardly "rising", when he's a number of feet/metres away.
I hope that's cleared it up for you

lefty.... why are you even bothering?

Everyone knows it was a knock on... you wont get any change from a trolling cross-board knucklehead.

I've been watching TV for 30 years, I still couldn't tell you how it works. I think you're getting mixed up with 'not played at', which is something else entirely. If the defender is in extreme proximity to the kicker, the chances are he won't have the time to play at it. It'll whack him, not played at, tackle count continues if the kicking team get it, if the defending team pick it up then it's tackle 1. Clearly he did play at this one (all charge downs are when the ball is played at).

It's pretty rare that the highest point a kick gets to is waist height, surely it's a fair assumption that it would have continued to rise had he not stopped it with his hand/arm. So we combine played at + rising ball = charge down. Doesn't matter that it went forwards, how far away he was or where he stuck his arm.

I'm genuinely not trolling and have complimented Wire's performance in this thread. Prior to Hill going off I thought you were going to beat us. I'm just trying to explain a misunderstood rule, but I think at this point some fans are determined not to understand because it's easier to just blame the ref.

The outcome being he smacks him in the head so yes he was penalised for it

I genuinely thought it was a knock on at the time, but having heard the ruling I can see why it was given the way it was.

well done... great 'bantz'.

please take your massive brain and jog on please.

Not 'bantz' just fact. It's the absolute definition of a red card.

lol.... ok

Hill with his elbows below his own nipples, doing a 'red card high tackle'.

all that picture does is back up my statement that he was sent off for the outcome of the tackle and not the actual tackle itself... you actually saved me a job, as i was about to go and look for that picture.

if you cant see that, then off you pop son.

So explain to me what the outcome was then bearing in mind that whether or not the player is going down is completely and utterly irrelevant

the outcome was that the referee, who had a terrible game, sent off a player for accidental contact with the head.

if the player jumps up and shakes his head like Daryl Clark would have... its a penalty and no one is overly bothered about it.

the thing you seem to be failing to grasp is that the sending off is a result of the injury NOT the tackle.

its not that difficult a concept to grasp.

Whether the contact with the head is accidental or not is also irrelevant.

The referee did have a terrible game yes and the VR would have had a say in the sending off so not all on Kendall.

you're either unable to read the actual question im putting to you, or you dont know what to say, so you're just saying random things like some weird RL politician... either way, i wont be replying again.... if i was you i would give up this new internet trolling career you have come up with...as its really not working for you.

None of us have an issue with the red card.....so long as every head shot is a red card too.
Many Wire were miffed about the poor referee standard across the game.

Have you even asked a question? It just seems to me like you're defending the indefensible.

You never looked like winning the game, using the 12 man excuse only lasts for so long, we managed to beat you with 12 men before, and we was 20 points behind at the point. You’ll be in for a long season judging from your performance last night

The ref was both ways. Some truly head scratching calls.

I would also expect any tackles such as Hills to be a red card.

Head tackle...not just those like Hill...but any. The lot.

If they direct contact (not bounced up off the ball or shoulder or chest etc) then they should be yeah

where do you stand on attacking players raising the point of the their elbow above their shoulder, then driving it into the neck of the opponent, as they run at them?

Didn't Nick Fozzard make a career from this with you guys?

its ok... you dont need to turn up and try and help your fellow troll......im sure he can speak for himself.

Looks like Wetherspoons are kicking out.......normal people would just go for a kebab

Attacking players lead with their arm/shoulder all the time. If that becomes the elbow then it's foul play. If it's deliberate then it should be a red. The difference in that and the contact with the head rule, is that one allows for an accidental occurence and one doesn't.

If you're talking about the incident I think you are, then he will probably be told off by the powers that be and told to watch his technique because I don't think itbwas deliberate.