Remember, a high shot is judge on point of impact not point of completion.

Frankly, that is rollocks. Otherwise we'll see ball carriers leading with a swinging forearm that bounces off chests into faces.

But I think you know that already, it's just not convenient to agree.

HIGH SHOT! Not a ball carrier.

a HIGH SHOT! Meaning a HIGH TACKLE. Meaning when Graham (constantly) swings his arm and hits someone in the chest and it moves up to the neck you think that should be penalised?

What exactly does that have to do with what Joel Tomkins did?

Well if you read the posts previous we are talking about how joel hits the chest then it rises to the face and I was pointin out how a High Shot is judged by point of impact and that this same thinking may apply to what Joel did and that would mean that he does not get the same sanction as he will have hit chest then rose to face.


Easier to understand the relevance now?

i hope is does appeal and get his ban reduced , other players do it , so why not Joel

No, because Joel hasn't been banned for a high tackle.

And I see you ignored my point that contact with the chest alone does not make every tackle (or ball carry) legal.

I didnt ignore that I pointed out about what Graham does and he DOESNT get penalised so your point was redundant.

And the relevance is simple. If he was tackling someone and he got their chest then as the player went down the grip moved to the head the tackle would be judged as far and in this he clearly hits his chest. He intends to hurt him yes but he hits the chest first and moves up with the momentum of the move and the other players dropping down.

Didn't Carvell get a ban for leading with the elbow turned over on appeal last season? Don't remember the incident but it's the same offence that Joel has been pinged for. Personally I think two matches was about right considering the dust up beforehand too. I don't think it was malicious but his aggression in the carry made it dangerous

well obviously

(joke)

what I ment was that if he had been sent off in say 1st 10 minutes he would've lost almost 1 game already and therefore all points towards appeal.

Also I though a gread B was only punishable to a maximum of 2?????
I understand me in my world

If this incident can only be justified by looking at it under such close scrutiny then you shouldn't be able to justify the culprits actions. Are you really trying to justify what Tomkins did by saying for a split second upon contact the elbow never hit, yet a fraction of a second later it is fully justifiable? The fact is upon for first viewing it is clear what he is trying to do, and looking at the sitation frame by frame picking out the ones where contact with the elbow is not visible is like shooting someone and claiming the seconds between the bullet leaving the gun and hitting the victim were out of your control therefore you shouldn't be blamed.

Dont worry we understand you too. You're right a grade B is only punishable to a maximum of 2 but he was charged with 2 grade B infringements.

I also agree it should work like that but I'm sure there was a Leeds player sent off pretty late on and he had his ban reduced because he had been sent off despite that being late too.

On field punishments are always taken into account at disciplinary hearing, hence the frequent use of the terms "penalty sufficient" and "sin binning sufficient" in the case notes

So what you're saying is incidents should be judged there and then in an instant and not viewed any more or in any detail? Great logic. It doesn't matter what happened, just what it looked like.

Not what I'm saying, I'm saying they should be viewed in full and not using one part of a slow mo replay to justify the actions of Tomkins.

The incidents get viewed in full from as many viewpoints as possible. One of the viewpoints will probably be a still image of the moment of contact to see whether the first impact was with the chest before rising up, which if that is the case will be used in mitigation.

I find it so annoying when Leeds fans come trolling when Peacock got off for almost taking Sam's head off in the CC Q/F and Senior also got away with kicking out wildly at Joel, cutting his head in the process. Both penalised at the time ( although not sinbinned), but neither punished by the RFL. And in the same game Farrell was sinbinned when McGuire collapsed like a sack of spuds after he attempted to charge down a kick. And don't come out with the argument about not tackling a kicker in the air. Farrell had half turned his back as he jumped towards Mcguire.

As has been said by several others already, we would just like consistency from the RFL. Peacock, Senior and Bailey have got away with a hell of a lot in recent seasons, as have Morley and now Carvell since he started playing for Tony Smith. I wonder what the connection there might be....

And obviously that is why he was given a two match ban for it. What I'm saying is the wigan fans are saying the appeal should be succesful based on the fact one part of the slow mo reply showed he was no using his elbow, yet a fraction of a second later he was. He could be fully intending to lead with the elbow and not have got it quite right, thusly raising it into the tackle to ensure the contact he wanted was made.

I've only seen one camera angle of it, and that's the one we've all seen on the SL highlights. Unless the match is on TV there's is usually only one camera up in the gantry on halfway so what they can be looking at, I don't know. All I can think of is that Madge and Leneghan are aggreived that it wasn't a fair hearing for whatever reason. I'd be interested to find out why they've decided to appeal in this case when IMO we've had previous incidents where we've had far more grounds for appeal than Joel has this week but we haven't bothered

I'm not trolling. Ah okay, I forgot that the Wigan team was full of angles, I wonder why they got he knickname Stompkins?

But the reverse could also be true. Joel may have tried to bump yeaman off with the shoulder and mistimed, causing him to raise his arms into the face. Only Joel knows what was going through his head at the time. How do you judge intent?

Coz its his name on the back of his shirt?

If you spelt it right you'd notice that it no longer spells stomp.

I take it you haven't quite grasped the concept of a knickname then?

Team full of angles? Where does maths come into it?

Knickname?