It seems from the RFL ruling on Ryan Bailey that it is OK to attack the head provided it is not with arm or fist etc.

Perhaps I am off the mark but isn't a high tackle a high tackle irrespective of what you hit the head with. Does this ruling mean you could do a karate kick to the head but that is OK.

This is a typical Leeds ruling but I can't understand the Diskin ruling, no doubt that will be no case to answer as has been Peacock for fighting the last 2 weeks.

It is a tough sport but we need consistency, at least the refs have been told not to blow like they did last year and if anybody can see any difference in play they have sharp or blind eyes, please tell us what rules we are playing to.

After saying this do not go down the Australian route of 2 refs where I have seen more errors in 2 weeks because they want to cut out the video ref (good) but make the decision theirselves, anybody with Setanta watching the matches will have seen massive knock ons and numerous debatable situations. there will alwas be mistakes but too many now seem to favour 1 team.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why?

He put the shoulder in, collisions happen and it wasn't intentional.

I hate Bailey as much as anyone, but it was nothing more than a shoulder hit.

Quit whining.

we start whining about shoulder hits we will turn our game into yawnion where shoulder charges are banned!!!

I have to agree. In this instance I don't think Bailey did anything particularly malicious. The shoulder can connect with the head quite easily in the average tackle.

no like everyone else think bailey is a tool but was just a good shot

Personally thought it was a belting shot. Maurie AGAIN being the victim of his own "head strong" style

Agreed. Although Maureen didnt same to take the ball in with his usual venom. The tackle was legal and a great one.

It was an absolute beauty of a shot!!!

Not the first time he has ducked into a challenge and come off second best. There's no use telling them on our board, though. They are too busy doing the biology and physics of the shoulder.

Any contact with the head is illegal.

Extract from the rulebook :

SECTION 15
PLAYER’S MISCONDUCT
Definition of 1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:
(a) trips, kicks or strikes another player.
[i(b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle
makes contact with the head or neck of an
opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.[/i

Doesn't matter if it's with the shoulder, it's still foul play.

So why wasent ir punished ?

I personally felt it was a good hard hit. However you could quite easily kill a bloke with a blow to the head.

You have failed to note that on this occasion it was not intentional and happened because the other player ducked his head in either looking for this or just part of his technique either way as it was not intentional, reckless or careless there was no case here. I dont like Bailey but to be fair to him it was legitimate look at our players their shoulders will have hit heads many a time but the other team don't usually complain because it's just part of the game. Sadly Saints who will look for a penalty in the most legitimate of tackles do so a debate is formed like this.

Maurie did not 'duck' into the tackle.

So he is a foot shorter than Bailey?

I thought he was bringing his arm up - therefore an illegal tackle/challenge !

He is not running onto the ball anything like he can do at the minute, which meant he was a sitting duck for Baileys shoulder charge.

Does this new ducking rule allow Burrows to have his head taken off time and time again as it's Burrows fault for ducking?

I hate bailey as much as anyone else but agree that it was a perfectly legal hit. The Guys on the superleague show seemed to make a big point of it being illegal etc but I really don't see what he did wrong.

He didn't duck into the tackle, but his Union-style low running technique didn't help.

It was a good tackle.

Massive hit and a fair one at that. so good i even heard the old ladie next door house to me shout "GET DOWN!!!!" when he connected!!. class

Sorry, but if your normal technique for evading tackles is to duck low, then you're regularly bringing your head into the region of the tackler's arm.

It's far more difficult for the referee to call a head-shot if the point of contact is actually at waist-height.

I'd agree that this is open to exploitation by those who routinely go for the head, but by the same token, to have every tackle of this sort penalised is also open for exploitation by the likes of Rob Burrow who always ducks because he's so short.

I wouldn't say that it's entirely Burrow's fault for ducking. But if he wants to cop it less round the chops, perhaps he should duck a little less.

I've watched it a few times now, and would tend to agree with what has been said - it was perfectly legal and Fa'as did have his head down so Bailey probably doesnt deserve a ban.

I cant agree that it was a "good" hit though - a man running in and connecting his shoulder with the other players head could easily snap his neck; so it is something that the RFL need to keep an eye on before it spirals out of control and more players use it as a legitimate tackling technique (as these things tend to do).

is right.

in this case Bailey is innocent.

Great tackle completely legal.