Dean Collis has been picked up by the disciplinary review panel again, for dangerous contact in a tackle. He has been given a reprimand and escaped a ban.

is he really such a bad tackler? I dont think he is....obviously the RFL are seeing things we're not.

Regarding collis and his ban against bradford i watched a nrl game and a player got put on report for being the third man in the tackle and tackling below the knee which is exactly what collis did so wether thats outlawed i dont know but that may clear up why he recieved the ban

'Cannon ball' tackle it is referred to. However players had done dangerous tackles and got away with it, even if they did injure players. Unfortunately our game was on Sky and Gaskell got injured, if we had fought the ban I reckon he'd of got off though.

The 'Wigan Tackle' is being clamped down on this season; a few years too late, but better late than never.

Until it's forgotten about in a few weeks. This ritual early season crack down on the perceived evil of the moment is getting truly tedious and as you say a touch late.

I'm ok with them picking out tacklers with poor technique that cause injury.
If he's been picked up twice he needs to improve.
For the sake of his own team and the opposition player.

Just aim above the knee or clamp the legs together tight. That's all it takes.

Agree. It's the same every season for about a month and then never penalised afterwards. Offside from the kick off seems a popular one as well, also will disappear shortly I reckon.

it'll be the same as that "swirly arm warning" thingy.

Not seen that since about round 4 last year

I'm assuming it was justa warning as he didn't appear in the banned list?

correct Pop's

heaven forbid a referee backs into him though, they'll have a cell reserved in Brixton

Although, can I add without people thinking I'm prejudiced......

How can someone who's been banned 3 games ago for dangerous contact, be cited for dangerous contact, and get a warning?

The RFL felt guilty for the ban he received (2 match).

Because they make it up as they go on.
Compare Matty Bowen head high shot to for example Tanseys push on the ref.
I aren't suggesting Tanseys was guilt free but 3 matches for that and none for that high shot???madness!!!
Now throw in Collis who even the Bulls fans though was harshly treated!
It doesn't prove or disprove anything apart from the erratic nature of the whole process!!

pretty much echoed my thoughts Kinley.

Ban first, warn second. Brilliant.

banning Tansey I can't argue with casue it's been done before - but fining the lad £300 as well? That's just robbery.

Why don't they just sue him for whiplash and have done with it

I don't agree with the Tansey part.
I posted this on the Cas forum but the high shot is something that can happen either on purpose or by accident because the tackle is part of the game. It has to be assessed.
A push on the ref is not part of the game and should be treated seriously.
You are not comparing harm to the receiver, you are comparing importance and likelihood in the game.

For me a head shot needs dealing with but there is a range of bans that could apply to different circumstances. The ban for a push on the referree has to be a major deterant from even trying it.
Tansey deserves the ban. Whether the individual head shot deserves more is debatable.

Because each incident is treated on its own merit? It's likely to second one is considered either accidental or minor whereas the original one was considered more serious.

Is all "dangerous contact" the same?
Should all high tackles just have a uniform punishment for example? Of course not because there are degrees of seriousness/intent etc

If you push a ref in a amateur game you'd get more than a couple of games.

Its a no no.

course he could plead as steve renouf did when he shoved an aussie ref to the ground that he was having a hypoglycaemic episode as a result of his type 1 diabetes and was rushing to get some sugar ..... and I am nearly sure renouf got off with it

That was the point i was making (or trying to).
Accidents happen in rugby but recklessness should be punished accordingly and 3 for pushing a ref would to me say that head shots at speed and with intent should be higher...unless your'e playing in the WCC the following week obviously.

Len Casey got months (can't remember what it was) and lost the GB captaincy and the tour to Australia for pushing a touch judge.

Even though I felt the TJ deserved it for going on at him after he'd been sent off, rules is rules.

I know of a certain player (saying no names) getting a lifetime ban for kicking the referee in the ballacks playing for Sharlston.

I think in terms of "pushing the ref" yes I know Tansey is not the first to be banned and I do not think it should be shrugged off. But the variable for me is the level of "recklessness" .....is pushing the referee reckless and potentially dangerous? no. Is hitting someone high reckless and potentially dangerous? yes.

Obviously we are talking about match officials here who should never receive physical contact.

But on this incident, IMO Roby was out of position and got himself in a position where contact was almost inevitable. Tansey had to make contact to get accross, otherwise the referee would've impeded the defence.

Was the level of contact excessive? In honesty, yes it was. Though while focussing on the oncoming attackers, I'm not sure whether he was even aware of the force he'd used.

The punishment is in line with Bailey's of 2 years ago which is fair enough, but I think the face value of the incident upon reflection is far more serious than the split second occurrence itself.

...back to Pocket4's point on Collis, I can see where you're coming from. But the term "warned over future conduct" nullifies your approach there, IMO. If he commits the offence again to the same extent will he get another warning in line with the current one?

If you get warned for doing 38 in a 30 zone, would the same police officer warn you againif he caught you the week after?

Surely when issuing warnings, previous records of the player needs to be taken into consideration. If the RFL felt 4 games ago that he should be banned for dangerous knee contact, then surely a warning for future conduct carries absolutely no significance, considering his past conduct shows he's prone to it.

It's a funny un

Correct.

My theory on this matter is the RFL spin a roulette wheel with; Warning, 1 Game ban, 2 Game ban, 3 game ban whichever the ball lands on is what the player gets!

Perhaps a bit of consitancy wouldn`t go a miss from our sports "Proffesional Body" ?

This may be more like getting caught doing 38 so you get points but the second time you get caught doing 32 and are let off with a telling off because it is marginal and within a certain tolerance. Seems a perfectly reasonable thing to me.

I think the RL judiciary system is quite difficult to follow and this why fans are often left scratching their heads or crying foul of favouritism in certain cases.

The players are playing a contact sport, the referee isn't, simples.
Also what if the ref has an underlying neck/back problem? This act could have been quite damaging, remember he isn't supposed to be man handled.

I haven't seen the incident but the referee has to get out of the way I think?