If you ignore all other cases and take it on this tackle only they've got it right.

Consistency is all we need.

I'm not sure I agree. I think the fact that the player is purposefully driving his legs forward should allow a defender to tackle that player around the legs to prevent the forward motion. If the attacker is being held stationary that would be a different matter.

I also disagree. It's a text book tackle that doesn't carry anymore danger than any other type of tackle. If its such a dangerous tackle why wasn't Flower charged when his tackle was deemed dangerous enough for a sin binning? I could easily go through all the games this weekend and find dozens of similar tackles that won't get charged. It's pathetic.

In fact I've just seen 2 worse "cannonball" tackles in the first 2 sets of the wigan vs wire game and no mention of them at all.

So in the Wigan v Warrington game Scott Taylor has gone in low as third man twice in the first minute. Let's see what happens about that. Oh it's Wigan therefore nothing.

Going to busy at Red Hall next week. Oh hang on wire v wigan forget that.

There'd be no problem with him wrapping up the legs. He does dive in a bit for a hit though, and it seems to be something they want to clamp down on. By itself, harsh but not ridiculous. Well not if he'd taken his EGP, but that's a different argument.
I agree with Sheldon - somebody else will do something similar (or worse) and it'll go unpunished. Spin, spin, spin the wheel of justice...

Spotted them too

The guys legs are moving. What should he do ask him if he minds hanging on while he gracefully kneels down and hugs his legs? Do me a favour he hardly got up a head of steam and crashed in.

As I say, it was harsh. But he goes off his feet and dives in. The bending down to hug legs is clearly what they're trying to encourage. player welfare is important and they are vulnerable in that situation. I think Paea is a bit unlucky to get done, when others won't. And 2 games certainly comes across as 'making an example'. It didn't look malicious.

Knowing what they're like, and that this is something they're focusing on, having been put on a charge the risk of 2 games probably outweighed the chance of a not guilty. An EGP (maybe with an appeal to [idowngrade[/i) would have been the politic manoeuvre. Wise with hindsight, perhaps.

What's been discussed isn't rugby league. I'm glad they're protecting the players but has to be some actual sense. A man has to be able to tackle a man still moving. For me he goes in at his back side when he 1st goes to tackle and ends low.
Seen a few in tonight's game
Both flower tackles are worse. Against the same opposition at the same ground! Only a week before! That's just bent!!!

Absolutely.

Reading the case Hull put raises an interesting wider question though. They acknowledge that Paea was not just trying to stop him, but wanted to put him down, preventing a quick play of the ball. An entirely legitimate and sensible aspiration for a defender. But in three-man tackles, that happen in stages, that has quite a lot of potential for the tackled player to be hurt.
Should the third man in just be to complete the tackle, or should he be allowed to help 'win' it? He has all the advantages, to the point that the tackled player is a bit of sitting duck. It rewards hard work for teams that put more bodies in, of course. But if it increases knee-knack, is it worth it?

According to Radford in the mail today the barrister agreed that Paea hit the quad first. The case should have been thrown out by the initial review panel at that point and no charge should ever have been brought. Otherwise there is no game of RL.

I absolutely see your point. But if a player is being held upright by two men, has a studded boot on the ground and is hit [ihard[/i anywhere on his leg, there is what might be considered an unacceptable risk of injury.
Where I think Hull maybe have a grievance, is that if the RFL now consider that to be the case, have they made it explicit? Presumably hitting the knee is a C-grade.

The player was running forwards - i.e. moving one leg after the other in a forward direction. He wasn't being 'held' in one position (hence the absence of a call of 'held') which as I said earlier had it been the case [imight[/i be a different argument. If that is an unacceptable risk of injury then so are all other cases of a tackle on the legs where one or more defenders are in contact with the upper body. In other words as I said - there is no game of RL if that's the case.

I don't think it was necessarily to stop Cas getting a quick PTB. That whole set they were taking their time to run the clock down with there being under a minute left to play (I'd hope we'd do the same in the same situation). The ref took an age to call held throughout the game (for both sides) slowing it down, which is probably why Mickey came in to try and complete the tackle in the first place. I've watched it several times now, mainly because I struggled to see it the first few times. I'm still baffled, particularly when you see it in comparison with the Flower tackles. No players called for a penalty and I don't recall the Cas fans stood around us doing so either.

And the Tansey ban? I'm lost for words.

pathetic,that crowd at redhall couldn`t run a peeup in a brewery.

Aye. The question is: are hard tackles on the legs when a player is held but not 'Held!', now out of bounds? I don't think it would necessarily be a disaster, but the rules have to be clear and reasonably consistently applied.
Also is there an objective cut-off where controlled ends and hard begins?

The point about Paea's build was 'interesting' too. Are little halfbacks more entitled to make certain tackles, that big props aren't?

I don't think he was either 'held' or 'Held' - he was moving forwards using a leg drive.

This is the crucial bit! What did Paea do different to Flower in those two videos?



And Flower is of similar build to Paea!

He wasn't stopped and clearly the other tacklers prevent him from falling as freely with Paea's tackle. I would agree that this turns the ball carrier from sitting duck to protected species and favours the attacking team.


Was Flower's last night? I only saw the last 20 minutes. Be interesting to see it and what the panel do.

No. Flowers was against Cas the previous week.

He got penalised and sin-binned for his but not called up by disciplinary.

Link is on this thread.

[url=http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC-hit-Mickey-Paea-ban-video-evidence-worse/story-20832437-detail/story.htmlFlowers tackle.[/url

Tbf, a sin binning is a moderately harsh punishment from a team POV. Hull will be without MP for 160 minutes, but won't be playing with 12 at any point as a result of this.
I guess that Paea going off his feet might have counted against him, but I agree it's effectively the same thing. As one of Flower's went completely unpunished, it does seem inconsistent. Either they both are ban-worthy or neither is.

2 match ban is way way more punitive than a sin binning - different league. And since the tackle was made in the 79th minute I'm sure we could have lived with it.