Charged with grade B striking with the shoulder according to this: www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... 10267287/- I don't remember anything other than the tackle on Lineham. Surely it can't be for that?

Charged with grade B striking with the shoulder according to this: www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... 10267287/- I don't remember anything other than the tackle on Lineham. Surely it can't be for that?

yes it is the tackle on lineham,

There was no clash of heads.

He made initial and direct contact with the head resulting in a semi conscious player and a trip to hospital.

Definitely the right decision, i couldn't believe that none of the (admittedly clueless) commentators saw it.

Does he have an EGP to use?

Ridiculous decision. The only way to prevent accidents is to ban the sport completely. The ban handed out for the Shenton tackle was a joke and this will be in the same category. I'm sorry that Lineham got hurt but it's all part of the game, or used to be.

The sport will end up 9 a side touch rugby , that's the way it's heading

It could be that the post tackle verbals went against Clubb when the review took place

To be fair you can see on one of the angles that his shoulder has hit Lineham straight in the face. Granted, if he had been able to get up they probably wouldn't have noticed. Hopefully next time he'll bend his back a bit, it was a cracking hit though!

Taken the EGP so misses the Dewsbury game - Could be argued it was a tactical EGP rather than risk missing the Hull game as well. Think he can consider himself unlucky.

Have you actually watched the tackle again since the game? I have several times and the only part of Clubb's anatomy that comes into contact with Lineham's head, is his head.

So are we really punishing big tackles and accidental head clashes now?

I've not seen the angle you're referring to, but even so, is it really a bannable offence? I'm quite worried about the direction the game is going in if we're punishing tackles like that.

Given that there wasn't any outrage form Sky and there's nothing but what appears to be a good tackle why EGP? Frustrating that EGP was entered in this case from what's on the RFL site. www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/dis ... rch=search

Given that there wasn't any outrage form Sky and there's nothing but what appears to be a good tackle why EGP? Frustrating that EGP was entered in this case from what's on the RFL site. www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/dis ... rch=search

Yes I have actually watched the tackle again since the game.

It was not a clash of heads it was a should making direct contact to the face.

I was a little annoyed it wasn't a penalty on the night, although the the ref had a poor game in general.

I don't have a mega issue with the tackle but it could have been a yellow.

1 match is about right Imo. At the end of the day wire missed a big powerful player for nearly 70 minutes because of this and Wigan weren't hindered by an act of foul play by one of their players. Not even territorially for one set.

For those referencing the shenton tackle as similar are deluded. That was a clear case of a bad injury influencing the RFL.

This is a case of the match review panel picking up what the refs and commentators ( and apparently you on multiple replays) missed.

At the end of the day you won't be hindered at all. He will miss the cup against lower league opposition. Hardly a drama is it.

I'm amazed someone could think that tackle deserves a yellow card and/or a ban. If it genuinely upset you then I'd suggest watching something more gentle like Crufts or Cash in the Attic. And wether or not Clubb's ban will hinder us is completely irrelevant, he should not have been banned full stop.

For comparison, Warrington player Ben Westwood's cowardly assault on Blake Green a few years ago resulted in a one match ban. Now tell me, was what Clubb did as severe as what Quasimodo did?

Why plead guilty then ?.

To avoid a longer ban I presume.

Is there an extra tariff if someone contests the charge and they fail?
I must admit on the night I thought it legal but hadnt got the stomach to watch the game again so I deleted the match as soon as I got home so I cannot comment on replays of the incident

That's called playing the system. It is very rare for a player to be charged and not get found guilty. Whether you agree with the charge or not the sensible option given the next game was to take the 1 match.

The incident was replayed a number of times on TV and none of those showed any foul play. Someone has claimed a camera angle that showed otherwise, I'm sorry but I don't buy that, if there is another camera angle why did sky not use it.

Wigan fans in defending the indefensible shocker. Replays are as clear as day that the contact is shoulder to head. The clearest angle is from the back of Clubb and shows it as clear as day.

Ban much deserved - I doubt it helped his case the verbals he seemed to give Lineham on the floor.

If direct contact to the head was as 'clear as day' why was it not seen by Eddie, Stevo, Clarke, Barry Mac, Carney & Wells. Why was is not seen by the Sky producers whilst showing numerous replays and why was it not seen by thousands of unblinkered fans who post on these boards and love a bit of faux outrage whenever a Wigan player commits an offence. Clear as day my ****

I'm not sure, but he was charged with grade B, which carries a ban of 1-2 matches. So him submitting an early guilty plea avoids a possible extra game ban.

The full match is on YouTube, the tackle is around the 19 minute mark.

Strange, isn't it? He gets charged with shoulder contact to the head but if the incident had been a head clash he wouldn't have been charged.

Nothing to worry about here. He picked up an injury against Wire anyway. Shouldn't need him for Sunday.

Quote ="PurpleCheeseWarrior"Have you actually watched the tackle again since the game? I have several times and the only part of Clubb's anatomy that comes into contact with Lineham's head, is his head. So are we really punishing big tackles and accidental head clashes now?'" Quote ="goobervision"Given that there wasn't any outrage form Sky and there's nothing but what appears to be a good tackle why EGP? Frustrating that EGP was entered in this case from what's on the RFL site. www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/dis ... rch=search'" Quote ="Trainman"That's called playing the system. It is very rare for a player to be charged and not get found guilty. Whether you agree with the charge or not the sensible option given the next game was to take the 1 match. The incident was replayed a number of times on TV and none of those showed any foul play. Someone has claimed a camera angle that showed otherwise, I'm sorry but I don't buy that, if there is another camera angle why did sky not use it.'" I'm a big Tony Clubb fan but as I already said, and you can now see from this picture, he has hit him straight in the head with his shoulder. It's poor technique rather than anything malicious I'm sure, just needs to bend his back next time.

Quote ="PurpleCheeseWarrior"Have you actually watched the tackle again since the game? I have several times and the only part of Clubb's anatomy that comes into contact with Lineham's head, is his head. So are we really punishing big tackles and accidental head clashes now?'" Quote ="goobervision"Given that there wasn't any outrage form Sky and there's nothing but what appears to be a good tackle why EGP? Frustrating that EGP was entered in this case from what's on the RFL site. www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/dis ... rch=search'" Quote ="Trainman"That's called playing the system. It is very rare for a player to be charged and not get found guilty. Whether you agree with the charge or not the sensible option given the next game was to take the 1 match. The incident was replayed a number of times on TV and none of those showed any foul play. Someone has claimed a camera angle that showed otherwise, I'm sorry but I don't buy that, if there is another camera angle why did sky not use it.'" I'm a big Tony Clubb fan but as I already said, and you can now see from this picture, he has hit him straight in the head with his shoulder. It's poor technique rather than anything malicious I'm sure, just needs to bend his back next time.

Because the Sky commentary team are so well known for their expert analysis aren't they?

The fact that the disciplinary panel viewed it and saw it differently is conveniently ignored. The image already provided does show it clear as day.



Why is it strange? Head clashes are generally accidental as who in their right mind would purposefully try to tackle a man with his head?

Fair enough, I hadn't seen that angle. Still, is that really deserving of a ban? It's not like he's full on dived at him shoulder first and aimed for his head.

Rugby is a tough sport, but because of a few delicate flowers, who've probably never played the game, all aggression is seemingly frowned upon.

The fact that it was his shoulder in no way makes it deliberate. If that was a head clash it would have rightly gone down as an accident. Why can't a shoulder to head clash be deemed just as accidental? IMO that tackle was fairly front on and should have escaped censure. However, it's a namby pamby world we live in these days.