Sean O'Loughlin got 1 match for this tackle that ended the other players season.

[youtubemiWT2kTv010[/youtube

I fully expect Greg to get far more punishment for having the cheek to object to getting tackled from behind when the ball isn't even in play

Quote ="Nozzy"Video of the incident. rugbyleagueweek.com.au/soward-se ... ncos-loss/ It seemed worse at the time. Greg a bit late on Soward although he did look committed to the tackle. Over reaction from Soward to run after him after a try has been scored and tackle him from behind. Bit of a scuffle on the floor but broken up quickly by other players. 1 match each?'" After watching the video several times,it is pure evident that worthy was committed to the tackle. Coward released the ball a fraction of a second before worthy made contact,so in my eyes it wasn't late and he never took him out. If worthy gets a ban for that,then the RFL need to change the rules to No tackling- tick and pass only.

Quote ="Nozzy"Video of the incident. rugbyleagueweek.com.au/soward-se ... ncos-loss/ It seemed worse at the time. Greg a bit late on Soward although he did look committed to the tackle. Over reaction from Soward to run after him after a try has been scored and tackle him from behind. Bit of a scuffle on the floor but broken up quickly by other players. 1 match each?'" After watching the video several times,it is pure evident that worthy was committed to the tackle. Coward released the ball a fraction of a second before worthy made contact,so in my eyes it wasn't late and he never took him out. If worthy gets a ban for that,then the RFL need to change the rules to No tackling- tick and pass only.

Thaler overreacted, yellow would have been enough for both.

Got to agree with Nozzy though , there's no comparison to the O' Loughlin tackle . Any further punishment to either player would be an injustice. Was a slight skirmish at the most.

Agreed, Atomic, the board know him all too well at present. My clapped-out I-pad 1 won't allow me to view any of the replays, so I'm unable to say if he was acting as peacemaker or piledriver. The other code (the one that must not be named save by the Boy that Lived) used to have a reasonably sensible rule about punch-ups. Let's face it, they are going to happen in one of the most high-impact, full contact sports. The two initial combatants would therefore only receive a ticking off from "Sir". The third aggressor (ie the one who opens the way for a free for all battle) would however be given his marching orders. I worked in SE England for a number of years and turned out in Union games (am I that boy?) but have been repatriated for well over a decade now. Dunno if that's still the rule. Probabably not with hoe-ring lawyers quite literally soliciting all over the place! If the RFL can get away with that one, IMO that would be a great step forward.

This was always the case in Amateur RL, captains were always told, "third man in is off". The likes of Acton, Higson amongst others would have completed many games.

Greg back to fev then?

Toronto.

I see Soward's charge is actually for punching and not for the off the ball tackle on Worthington.

Was the the fact that he tackled a player from behind when the ball wasn't even in play not even looked at?

Or is it ok now to randomly tackle opposition players well after a try has been scored?

It is on the video so I am not sure how it hasn't been picked up by the panel. It is what started the whole thing



I have given up trying to understand the disciplinary process at the RFL. They just make it up as they go along!

From the disciplinary.

Greg Worthington

DETAILS OF CHARGE / REASON FOR NF :

Rule – 15.1(a) Detail – [uStrikes with hand, arm or shoulder[/u - reckless Grade – A

Can they not make there mind up on which one?



Can the stupid buffoons not see it was an attempted tackle?

It covers the options in one rule, it would be a bit daft to have a rule for hand, a rule for arm and a rule for shoulder.

Well there is one for shoulder. It's called a shoulder charge.

Hand - slap,punch or strike.

arm - stiff arm.

Which one would they like to use for the incident? In my view it was a tackle (not high either).

I think we are looking for the incident between the Grade A and the Grade C..But I dont see a charge,I can see it on the video evidence.

Why can't the panel see it? Soward takes the hit,doesn't like it,takes the game into his own hands.

The Grade A offence should be withdrawn because there was just nothing wrong with it.


DETAILS OF CHARGE / REASON FOR NF :

Rule – 15.1(a) Detail – Strikes – Punching - Repeated Grade – C

The video on that angle doesn't show any evidence of that.

If the disciplinary have a video from a different angle showing the said charge,then fair enough.

I'm more concerned with the fact that the panel have completely ignored what Soward did after the minor.Greg should take the Grade C,but Soward should be on a Grade D before his Grade A..They seem to have missed that bit.

Having watched the 'Youtube' video on the Broncos site, I reckon Soward took exception to Greg's slightly late (but with both hands raised) challenge. He then appears to tackle Worthington from behind. I can't actually see any punches thrown by either player but Ben Thaler obviously did - he's right in the middle of the melee. So, presumably the referee's report has been used here, rather than an inconclusive camera angle. I still believe Thaler is the best there is, and am prepared to trust him on this one.

OK, we can argue that, if Soward hadn't tackled Greg, nothing else would have happened. Or we could argue that, if Greg hadn't gone in recklessly on Soward, nothing would have happened. As the EGP is available to both, it looks like no suspension for Soward, and three for Greg.

In some ways, we could benefit from this decision, as we have cover for Worthington, and I'd prefer Soward to be available for the Broncos against the rest of the teams!

Alan - there is no way Greg has gone in recklessly.

When Greg makes a move to tackle Coward, Coward has still got the ball in his hands.

When Greg makes contact,both of his arms are in a downward position.Coward draws him in and the ball has barely gone a meter at the point of contact.

Just to add to that. If Coward doesn't pass the ball,then it becomes a fantastic tackle.

Cokey,

Check the Youtube clip on the Broncos site, and freeze it when Worthington makes contact. His right arm is out and at head height on Soward. he may well have been committed to the tackle but his right arm is high.

Cover has nothing to do with it Alan.Sowards took the game into his own hands,tackled Worthington off the ball because he took one..Soward didn't expect to see red.Had Thaler not been in charge,he probably wouldn't have.

RFL disciplinary/review panel,do need challenging,and review/sentencing laws need to be clarified and fixed.No grey areas.No get out clauses like EPG,no reducing/increasing charges when it fits.What one see's another see's different.Fixed definitions required not available windows or exits to suit.

Alan - would you be kind enough to post a link? I just can't find it. I've found the highlights on youtube which is the angle that's already posted on here. At the point of contact his arms are in a downward position,but because of the nature of movement of the contact,his right arm has been forced back into a upright position. There is nothing sinister in that tackle. He was committed and it just looks worse than you are making out.

Trust me, as someone in West Stand South Worthington threw plenty of punches. Didn't see the initial incident as I was following the play, but when I looked back he was knocking seven bells out of Soward. Not saying he didn't deserve it like



on the bright side not short of quality centres - them and props a plenty

Well done Col. I trust you what you saw.That concludes the Grade C for me then.



The Grade A offence is farcical though.

Quote ="Cokey"Alan - would you be kind enough to post a link? I just can't find it. I've found the highlights on youtube which is the angle that's already posted on here. At the point of contact his arms are in a downward position,but because of the nature of movement of the contact,his right arm has been forced back into a upright position. There is nothing sinister in that tackle. He was committed and it just looks worse than you are making out.'" This is it - I hope! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYbyJWhunEk

Quote ="Cokey"Alan - would you be kind enough to post a link? I just can't find it. I've found the highlights on youtube which is the angle that's already posted on here. At the point of contact his arms are in a downward position,but because of the nature of movement of the contact,his right arm has been forced back into a upright position. There is nothing sinister in that tackle. He was committed and it just looks worse than you are making out.'" This is it - I hope! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYbyJWhunEk

Quote ="Alan"This is it - I hope! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYbyJWhunEk'" It's the same clip we've been watching all along. Alan - We have a difference of opinion.

Quote ="Alan"This is it - I hope! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYbyJWhunEk'" It's the same clip we've been watching all along. Alan - We have a difference of opinion.

No we arn't for the Salford game,your right.