No...a 'tackle' is what most players do: stop momentum, take the man to the floor, wrap the ball up - it normally involves putting your arms around the player. A shot is just that; a shot. The sort of thing Union has outlawed because they're fannies. Tackle ≠ shot.


Perhaps all players should throw punches first and ask questions later? O'Donnell moved in, Bailey is the one who actually took it to the next level by throwing punches.


Yes, of course, just a push. It seems Leeds' thuggish tactics and blinkers are starting to rub off on their fans.

:1ft0ex0oNo, you have simply described one type of tackle and pretended it covers all types of tackle. Its funny because you banged on about Jeff Lima's illegal hit on Clarkson simply being a 'tackle' yet he did none of the things you describe.

Good. Again, im glad you can see that now.

Did I? Where?

Here's a hint - look up 'tackle' in a RL training manual. Then you might have a clue what you're talking about.


Errrrmm...how about move away? Fact is, he threw the first punch on both Brown and O'Donnell and has therefore been banned and fined.

here

We know it definitely doesnt show attacking the knees from the side, with your shoulder of a player held up in the tackle. We know this because it is specifically outlawed by the RFL. We do know that tackling with the shoulder is legal, so there likely will be a picture of tackling with the shoulder in any good quality training manual. SBW made a career out of it.


Oh how about he throws a punch, there is a little bit of a scuffle and we all stop pretending we dont enjoy seeing two props go at each other? If O'Donnell wants no part of it, he has a fairly obvious alternative. Dont go wading through players to stride aggressively at another.

My good giddy god. Please, get out the house more, stop stalking, and find some real friends. So you found an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment (one I didn't even remember!) - really, if that's the entire crux of your argument, it's pathetic, but not quite as pathetic as searching back through my posts to make a point!



I can tell you this. As a RL coach, if one of my players tries to put a shot on and it fails, the first thing he'll hear is "cut out the shots and make the f*cking tackle". And most RL coaches will say the same. Odd that, isn't it. And I've yet to see a tackling drill that involves shoulder/arm shots. Strange, really.


How about you give over pretending Bailey's somehow not to blame and was in fact spitting his dummy at being thrashed at home by Huddersfield and acting the cowardly thug again?

You asked for evidence of you being a massive hypocrite. I gave you evidence of you being a massive hypocrite. There is no need to get all uppity now you have been proven as a massive hypocrite. It took all of 30 seconds, it was difficult to prove how much of a massive hypocrite you are.

And if it results in the tackle being completed and you coming away with the ball as happened in this instance with Bailey?

I havent pretended Bailey wasnt to blame. He did what he did, and he will serve a one match ban. Thats fine with me. The punishment fits the crime. It wasnt in any way cowardly. He was standing face to face with the most suspended player in NRL history. He got his shot off first.

Im saying its not really a big deal. You seem to think it proves your prejudice. You have been shown to take a hypocritical stance.

What, because you found an off-the-cuff remark about a different situation that happens to suit you? Don't think so pal, you've just proved how cringingly sad and desperate you are by going to those lengths.





Then it's a good shot. I still wouldn't call it a tackle. Not sure what you don't understand about this? But then it's becoming increasingly clear you don't understand the technicalities or nuances of RL.


Yet you dedicate so much time battling anyone who says a word against him, don't you?



Enough now, this is dull and you're boring. We all saw what happened and we all know what Bailey's about.

of spending 40 seconds looking for something? If thats how you want to backtrack thats how you want to backtrack. You will still look like a one-eyed Wigan hypocrite




you think it is a technicality or a nuance of the game to pretend that a tackle with the shoulder is called a shot and a tackle with the arms is called a tackle. You have much to learn young man.

I havent defended him once. We all saw that and we all know what you are about.

Whatever you say lad - enough fannying around while you attempt to form some strange and random argument on the back of tenuous quotes and petty distraction tactics - let's get back to the issue:

Bailey - proper sh*thouse, ain't he?

No, not really. But he manages to wind up idiots and no-nothings into a fantastic palaver.