The problem I have with the tackle is that he has time to pull out, or correct it. Instead he drives Lomax down which is incredibly dangerous.

How Lomax escaped without injury I don't know.

If the McKinnon incident hadn't happened would the horror shown be the same- no chance!!! To put it into context both sets of fans can relate to lolesi's career was cut short by a worse tackle which didn't even warrant a week ban. - the incident panel claimed lolesi had made it worse by the way he landed!
It was mistimed but it was an upper body tackle- not a leg lift. Four weeks would be exceptionally harsh. But it wouldn't surprise me only because of what occurred last week.
The tackle by lomax on robbo was when robbo was in the air and unable to affect how he landed.

Behave! Lomax pulled out of the tackle and I'd imagine it was pretty hard to avoid contact at full speed. Comparing that to dumping somebody on their head is ridiculous!

can't defend brett for that, although i don't think there was any intent to injure lomax on his part.
he will be made an example of i fear.

Any other time it'd be a warning and sending off sufficient.
Events down under will probably mean 4 games +

My only concern is that if they give Brett both barrels it's has to send the message out that is the punishment for a dangerous tackling. Knowing the RFL they'll hang Brett for this due to how recent it is to the McKinnon incident, and after the dust has settled the next serious incident will I fear will be tret with the usual 2 to 3 match bans

your quite wrong, the length of the Jordan Mclean ban WAS based on the Injury

this from the NRL Judiciary


so 3 games for the dangerous tackle and an additional 4 games for a broken neck............. and people think a drop goal being wrongly dissallowed is crazy......... RFL or NRL, both as bad as each other..... it must be a Rugby league thing

this....

Here's the grading for dangerous throws/ spear tackles:

15.1(d) Uses a dangerous throw
Dangerous throw
B-C Other tackler's actions were part of the problem (only applies where Player is not aware of other tackler's actions)
B-C Ball carrier's actions were part of the problem
B-D Lifting & dropping player
D-E Throwing player to the ground
Spear tackle
E-F Driving player into ground on head or neck
Other dangerous throw A-F


You decide

looking at that the grading should be E-F which is 4+ games

8 Games plus for me and i'm not joking. No place in the game for that kind of tackle and who is Brett Ferres to determine whether a bloke walks again or not ? To lift any player like that takes a huge amount of strength and effort and then to continue that motion and drive him into the floor is appalling. The fact Lomax isent paralyzed should not take anything off that tackle, just one each either way and Lomax is lying in hospital waiting to feel movement in his legs. Watch the game and it's clear that Ferres is un-happy at a number of decisions and took his anger out on Lomax. I'll be appalled if it's not at least 8 games.

Had opportunities to halt the tackle, carried on anyway. Deserves everything he gets.

ferres is not a dirty player, even nathan brown said this and he brought him to the giants

he does have a tackling technique though which always threatens to end up like this, not the first time ive seen him almost spear players..needs to work on this

Anderson brought him.

A very dangerous and reckless tackle but I'm not convinced it was malicious. I'm very glad Lomax came away unscathed, will be and should be a four match ban probably more in my opinion.

sorry yes anderson did after brown got the sack.

what about robinson being tackled in the air in the first half by lomax, if robinson had landed on his head would lomax of got a red card?

Who can say? Lomax went in to challenge for the ball, he wasn't going to win it but didn't pull fully out like he probably should have done - it was in a split second though.

The problem with the Ferres tackle is that he had time to try control the tackle after it went wrong, he could have just conceded the penalty and got Lomax down safely; he didn't and that cost him and the team dearly.

In my mind we wouldn't even be discussing drop goals if Ferres had lowered Lomax carefully.

yep and in the build up to this saints should not of even had the ball - wardle being held down by the collar and unable to get up by lomax - penalty to saints.



you could hear brough shouting to bentham..why is it we never get anything when its done to us?!?!

I have seen the incident on TV a few times now.
Lomax is a bit like Grix he likes to try and struggle to evade defenders in my opinion with him doing that and Ferres trying to wrestle him to the ground I don't think it was actually that bad but probably a dismissal.

I would say 1-2 games is fair.

I'm sorry but trolling or not you sound like a sick individual. Absolutely disgusting view of it.

Grow up. Shock horror someone has a different view.

As often happens the offenders teams supporters generally don't think it was that bad and he's not that kind of player and the offended against think it's intentional and disgraceful and are calling for the aggressors head.

Last month it would have been on report and 1 or 2 matches. Recent events have changed perspective and it was rightly a red card. I would expect an example to be made with 5+ matches which IMO is excessive. Like it or not Lomax contributed to where he ended up. It was Ferres' fault and his responsibility to ensure the tackle is safe but Lomax still contributed.

I don't think what Brett did was premeditated or intentional. I think it was very poor technique and careless, which is still serious. It was a deserved Red Card and because of the injury it could of caused he'll get a minimum 3 match ban, probably 5. Brett had responsibility for Lomax's safety and in light of the incident Down Under it's inevitable he'll get longer than he would of done a fortnight ago. I have no issue with that, I only ask that there is consistancy of punishment over future similar incidents.

The only way Lomax contributed to being where he ended up was by being on the rugby pitch. All the rest was entirely and completely the fault of Ferres and all those Hudds fans blaming Bentham for not awarding a drop goal which he (and one TV angle) didn't consider to be a drop goal, should look to Ferres because until Ferres was sent off, Hudds were well ahead and had that game in the bag.

Looking at the punishments available to Ferres, I reckon it would come under dangerous throw rather than spear. I didn't get the impression either when at the game or when watching it back that Ferres drove Lomax's head into the ground. I got the impression he spun him over and that would tie in with the dangerous throw grade.

As for Lomax getting Robinson in the air: he did. He let go very quickly also and apologised to Robinson. A penalty was rightly awarded to Huddersfield.

Which Huddersfield player was it who tackled Makinson in the air? Was it McGilveray? I think so but I'm not totally sure. Anyway, he also conceded a penalty. Penalty sufficient on both occasions.

It is only because I can't be bothered getting banned and setting up a new profile on here that I'm not telling you exactly what I think of you after reading that. Disgraceful.

And one of your try's was forward and the other wasn't conclusive to say was over the line so maybe both teams feel hard done by.

You need to accept it mate. Mistake or no mistake it's come now and move on.

4-5 i reckon, because of the Mckinnon incident he will be made an example of now, but i can guarantee when that happens to one of our players in the next couple of weeks as it will do we wont see a card of any colour !!
Brett isn't that kind of bloke - there is no way he would have intended to hurt Lomax and it wasn't malicious just careless - silly boy but he will have known that the minute he did it.

I am not condoning the Ferres tackle in anyway and he desrved to be sent off and to receive whatever ban is appropriate for such a tackle.

I am sure though it was more bad technique than deliberate as Ferres is not a and never has been a dirty player.
What i cannot understand is the huge overeaction of some because of a tragic incident in Australia that while tragic was more down to bad luck then any intention on the tacklers behalf. Calling for Ferres to receive a record ban is wrong and i have seen tackles over the years that have been equally as bad. 3-4 games would still send out a very strong message that this type of tackle is not acceptable.
If going forward the RFL want to look at this type of tackle and change the length of ban associated with it i have no problem. However surely they have to follow the very clealry set guidelines in place as to how long he gets bans. They cannot simply add to the ban without changing the grading first. Or maybe thay can because the RFL have nver been consistant on disciplinary matters.