The same Jewitt that has been posted on the Cas forum site carrying out a cannon ball tackle in the same match.

Not quite, no. A cannonball is a tackle that directly impacts the side or front of the knee, forcing the knee to bend in an unnatural sideways or backwards direction. This is extremely dangerous and illegal. Although I personally don't like any player making contact below the knee when the tackle is almost complete, Jewitt's tackle is not illegal as it doesn't put unnatural pressure on the joint. Rather, it bends the knee in a natural direction and not extending the joint. Having said that, I would still change the rules to make this kind of tackle illegal. It just isn't at the moment.
It was looked at formally by the panel who decided it wasn't illegal.

Batley

I've looked at the You Tube footage about seven of eight times and all bias aside, Boudebza appears to hit Shenton in a classical, as you were taught to tackle, back into the day hip area.

Boudebza's tackling style is one of tacking players around the hip and sliding down the legs, as used to be the norm, before ball and all techniques.

He retreats from the tackle without any appearance of malice.

Shenton is then clearly in distress.

I'm not saying that Boudebza doesn't deserve his ban, but quite clearly, the RFL have access to different footage than that shot by Rovers.

Hull KR 0 Leeds Rhinos 50. The worst challenge cup final EVER !

Shenton "to have my season ended by a reckless challenge is difficult to swallow" .....he's sad absolutely nothing out of line there. Powell expressed his opinion, again , think he's entitled to. I don't thint it was malicious but reckless. Compare it to rangi's on ferres last year where there was intent and malice in it, it isn't the same.

On the flip side, I fully understand KR appealing it. Makes no odds to me really how long boudebza is banned for. However, I do want 3rd man tackles on the joint to be scrutinised and if that means the rfl looking at jewit's then fair enough. (Fwiw he is very aggressive, bordering on bailey, which is not an avenue I want a cas player to take....)

Differeng to bailey, Jewitt is the nicest , down to earth bloke ive met involved with rugby, however opposition fans won't like him and perhaps Adam walker...

The video clearly shows him going in waist high though. Whereas the Jewwitt cannonball tackle on Mitch Allgood definitely does go around the knees.

How many times does it need to be said? Jewitts tackle is at the back of the knee, NOT THE FRONT OR THE SIDE, which is where the issues and injury's lie. The Jewitt tackle keeps the joint in the normal range of motion, as opposed to bending it the wrong way, ala Boudebza.

4th best ever actually

The video of the Jewitt tackle posted by a Castleford forum with a comment of lucky guy (or similar) on a Castleford forum and supported by other Castleford fans would appear to support a different view.

The comments about Boudebza's tackle on various social media sites would seem the vast of neutral majority of Rugby League fans would seem to support there was nothing in it.

That's so last season

Rules are rules. Jewitts tackle doesn't put any 'undue pressure' on the joint. Otherwise, he'd have been cited.

My comments about boudebzas tackle were more about the causation of the injury. If you bothered to look through my other posts you'd see that I think its a harsh decision.

wow.

Either they've got another angle or they've just gone with Powell's quote.

Otherwise it's farcical. Or surrealist genius - might as well put a positive spin on it.

The failures of leadership - there are mitigating factors for those. The bureaucratic and procedural incompetence is wearing to see the least.

I agree, I meant that there should be no contact below the knee, even if the initial contact is above (ie the defender should not 'slide' down the legs).
I don't like the type of tackle Jewitt made. However, at the moment it's not illegal as the tackle did not put undue pressure on the joint or bend it in any unnatural way. It's a change of rules needed here.

The camera angle on the SL show wasn’t the greatest and in my opinion from that angle the tackle doesn’t look that bad.

What you don’t see is where Boudebza actually makes contact. If there’s should contact with the back of the knee it is reckless. He could have gone higher with the impact and slid down to effect the tackle without any issues for Shenton.

What we can’t see from any angle is the intent Boudebza has to cause an injury. In my view it was a reckless challenge but that’s just me.

Agreed, POwells use of the word reckless has probably proved mitigating in what should clearly have been a longer ban. Deliberately ending a players season with such wild abandon really needs clamping down on.

Iv'e watched it loads of times and I can't see how they can prove (from that video) that John B did anything wrong, so either they are guessing or have another video angle (Which is doubtful on a non TV game).

4 games for a challenge that the RFL are guessing was illegal, is ridiculous, Sneyd's was worst last year and he got 1/2 games (Which was fair IMO), so I just can't see were they are coming from here and apart from the odd Cas fan, every other RL fan seems to agree.

I'm gald you are appealing and hope you win.

Agree 100% with your post,and thanks for the good wishes on the incident.A lot of cas fans and neutrals on here and twitter also feel the same,we all sympathise with shentons injury and wish him a full recovery.
Of course their is always one and the previous poster to you hull smallbrain fits the bill perfectly.

I'm very wary of coming across all Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells, but I am genuinely curious how they came up with this. I might draft a very measured email to RFL-enquiries, asking whether they have another camera angle or whether there were any formal or informal representations directly to the panel from Michael Shenton or Castleford, besides the physio confirming the seriousness of the lad's injury.

Also I don't want to turn the outrage up to 11 and then it turns out there is another, much more conclusive and damning camera angle!

Who knows what they think at RLHQ, it changes with the wind. I worry that the severity of an injury is the yardstick in such a physical game like RL, what next 6 matches for accidental he'd clash because one player had 12 stitches.

John is not a dirty player and I would bet anything that he went in with all integrity to make a tackle, nothing else.

From The RFL Website
Decision Guilty
Reasons for Decision The Panel state they have watched the video carefully and given careful consideration to what they have heard. They are satisfied dangerous contact was made,and do not accept the player lost his footing. It can be seen from the video the player makes a sweeping action with his left leg, and therefore has no control of his bodyweight.

It is accepted the contact was not intentional however defenders have a duty of care when tackling opposition players.
If it wasn’t intentional why double the laid down tariff ?

If the RFL did actually have conclusive proof of guilt (ie another clear angle etc) JB would have definitely been charged with a much higher/severe grading than B (ie 1-2 game category). I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.

As it is, they've found him guilty of that particular graded B offence. Took away the player's EGP - and then basically sentenced him against a far greater offence than the one the evidence supports or indeed he was charged with. A particular guilt and punishment that can only be speculated against due to the outcome of the injury Shenton unfortunately received.

Reading the report, it seems to be heavily based on the aggravating circumstances rather than anything else and any speculative defence brushed aside. The dismissive way they reject JB slips/looses footing as a possibility. Anyone can see conditions and this looks (in part) entirely plausible and actual. Nah, wash over that bit. Guilty before innocent, we won't accept anything other than doubt that leans towards guilt as evidence. Aggravating circumstances dictate this.

In a contact sport such as Rugby league, injuries are going to happen – be it, arising from foul play or fair play. So I think when the disciplinary panel are going to start deciding punishments based on the outcome rather than act/evidence, it could start a problem for itself. The perceived, equivalent justice/no justice – 2 tier punishments.

Take Philbin on Kelly last season in our semi. Late hit/charge down on Kelly. No action was deemed necessary by the RFL then but it was clear he put undue stress on Kelly’s knee and resulted in his knee/leg in an unnatural position. It was cited but no aggravating factors to that case/verdict. Kelly played on of course but never played another league game due to the injury that occurred. (played in the final patched up – but was never fit of course). Every team will be able to bring up incidents not flagged.

James Green on Burns last year. Burns sustained a broken cheekbone. Green EGP 1 game. Uproar.
Sky camera shows contact with chest/shoulder first. Without this evidence would Green have got say 4 games? Aggravating circumstances that time?

I just think it could even start in motion a dangerous precedence that some clubs could even abuse. Ie overstate injuries to sway the judiciary hearings … Of course no one is suggesting that here, but you get the point. If the evidence (tv footage etc) doesn't show enough either way, I don't like how it then falls to the outcome of the incident to dictate/increase the punishment. In as much, guilt has already been decided in the headlines.

What an idiotic and provocative load of mock indignation shizzle from a darksider. In future when I read your occasional posts, they might go straight into my king-size dick head folder, if you keep spouting this sort of cods. I was at the game behind the posts in our North Stand and I watched the tackle from behind no more than 50 yards away. I have also seen the same video footage side on as you and everyone else several times.

Please explain to the rational and fair minded posters on here, how you can classify Boudebza's 3rd man tackle as a "deliberate" attempt to end Shenton's season? To do so beggars belief. As if that wasn't bad enough, you then attempt to varnish your provocation by saying he did it "with such wild abandon." Are you saying that he should refrain from tackling a player in a contact sport who is still moving forward and when the tackle isn't fully completed?

We all feel for Michael Shenton and hope he makes a successful and speedy recovery.

It seems a lot of impartial observers view the tackle outcome as unintentional. I can only assume your posted nonsense is derived from a judgemental vision based on who you support.

Reading the report [uand assuming it is based on the camera angle we've seen[/u, it does read to me that they've come at it with a decision in mind and (HEAVILY) interpreted the evidence to justify it. Rather than taking the more traditional and appropriate evidence [ithen[/i decision approach.

Could anybody really come to [uthat footage[/u with fresh eyes and be as taken aback as they seem to have been? Really? IMO nobody is going to look at that, wince and say 'ooh, that is a really bad one - throw book at him, write a new one and throw that too.'. Except it seems that they have.

Never let that panel watch a Wigan game, they'll have connipations!

I mean how did they deliver the decision - with poe-faced solemnity of people more that are more disappointed than angry? Or with furious passion reflecting the extreme recklessness they think they've seen? Must have been bemusing to be John, especially with it all in his second language.

Pickering Red - I wouldn't take Smallears seriously. I've known him 35 years and never have. Even when he was made my sixer due a bureaucratic error that would shame the RFL. In its way it is a supportive post, highlighting the ludicrous nature of the situation.