WWW.RLFANS.COM :: View topic - RD 20

RogerMoore wrote:The problem is it is the disciplinary rhetoric which determines whether or not the tackle is illegal. I'm sure every club can name numerous occasions where one of their players have been struck with a high tackle for the MRP to describe it " the attacking player turned into the tackle and was falling to the ground as the defender made the tackle causing the tackle to slide up and strike the head" NFA. The same tackle next week is worded "the defender was tackling high irrespective of the attacker falling and was reckless as to whether or not there was contact with the head" 2 Matches. Same tackle different outcome solely on how the minutes were worded. Having watched the tackle on Paasi it could be worded " defender makes tackle low and in doing so is reckless as to whether shoulder strikes knee putting undue pressure to the knee". Reading most of the club boards it seems agreed the MRP is not fit for purpose in general, The worrying thing is that 3 players in this game have been injured due to the tackling technique of one player. Coaches may now consider giving instruction, based on the technique, on how to stop big packs, resulting in more serious injury.

Author:	RogerMoore [ Tue Jul 25, 2023 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: RD 20 \| St Helens (A)
The problem is it is the disciplinary rhetoric which determines whether or not the tackle is illegal. I'm sure every club can name numerous occasions where one of their players have been struck with a high tackle for the MRP to describe it " the attacking player turned into the tackle and was falling to the ground as the defender made the tackle causing the tackle to slide up and strike the head" NFA. The same tackle next week is worded "the defender was tackling high irrespective of the attacker falling and was reckless as to whether or not there was contact with the head" 2 Matches. Same tackle different outcome solely on how the minutes were worded. Having watched the tackle on Paasi it could be worded " defender makes tackle low and in doing so is reckless as to whether shoulder strikes knee putting undue pressure to the knee". Reading most of the club boards it seems agreed the MRP is not fit for purpose in general, The worrying thing is that 3 players in this game have been injured due to the tackling technique of one player. Coaches may now consider giving instruction, based on the technique, on how to stop big packs, resulting in more serious injury.

Author:	leedsbarmyarmy [ Tue Jul 25, 2023 6:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: RD 20 \| St Helens (A)
You could make every single tackle sound dangerous if you worded it correctly. Im guessing your high tackle comments are regarding Matuatias ban, his was late, high and he's got previous, compared to Shorrocks who was just high, not late, and was punished with a red card. He probably deserved two and Shorrocks one. I agree that the MRP does make a lot of weird decisions though and probably does need over haul. What doesn't help is fans dissecting every tackle and decision when they lose, trying to undermine every decision, it makes them look entitled and sore losers. Even more so when their coach spits their dummy out also.

Author:	Sir Gregory ParsloeP [ Tue Jul 25, 2023 7:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: RD 20 \| St Helens (A)
thesaint71 wrote:Am on about our attack our only idea is to give the ball to Hurrel We’ve seen that movie a lot more than you have. Agree you aren’t looking as fluid with the ball but under Cunningham you had a lovely balance of clueless attack and woeful defence. Wellens has still plenty of work to do to plumb such depths. The injuries up front may mean you play a more open game and improve the attack. You still have a lot of class players.

Author:	Sir Gregory ParsloeP [ Tue Jul 25, 2023 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: RD 20 \| St Helens (A)
RogerMoore wrote:The problem is it is the disciplinary rhetoric which determines whether or not the tackle is illegal. I'm sure every club can name numerous occasions where one of their players have been struck with a high tackle for the MRP to describe it " the attacking player turned into the tackle and was falling to the ground as the defender made the tackle causing the tackle to slide up and strike the head" NFA. The same tackle next week is worded "the defender was tackling high irrespective of the attacker falling and was reckless as to whether or not there was contact with the head" 2 Matches. Same tackle different outcome solely on how the minutes were worded. Having watched the tackle on Paasi it could be worded " defender makes tackle low and in doing so is reckless as to whether shoulder strikes knee putting undue pressure to the knee". Reading most of the club boards it seems agreed the MRP is not fit for purpose in general, The worrying thing is that 3 players in this game have been injured due to the tackling technique of one player. Coaches may now consider giving instruction, based on the technique, on how to stop big packs, resulting in more serious injury. Not been able to see the Walmsley one but the Paasi one he does grab the leg but he’s a bit kamikaze, it’s when Holmes then comes in on top and Asiata has the leg. Paasi gets twisted. No consolation for Saints but he will be a marked man now.

Author:	Shabino [ Wed Jul 26, 2023 7:49 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD 20 \| St Helens (A)
Saints looking more and more depleted by the minute. We really must win this one if we have any hope of playoff footy…..

WWW.RLFANS.COM https://rlfans.com/forums/

RD 20 \| St Helens (A) https://rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=644687	Page 5 of 34

Author:	RogerMoore [ Wed Jul 26, 2023 8:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD 20 \| St Helens (A)
leedsbarmyarmy wrote:But Knowles tackles were illegal, that why they brought the injuries into the discussion, Asiatas were legal tackles Case Number: ON/355/23 Morgan Knowles #13, St Helens Competition: Super League Match: Wigan Warriors v St Helens Match Date: 2023-04-07 Incident: Dangerous Contact Decision: Charge Charge Detail: Law 15.1 (i) Dangerous Contact - Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player. Grade D So Defender (Asiata) uses any part of their body (shoulder) to twist bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of any opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player. Looks the same to me, as I've said it is the interpretation the MRP puts on the rule that causes the problem. The head tackle was nothing to do with Matautia, he got what he deserved in my mind. I was using a head tackle as an example. I've no doubt if you look back through your board you will find examples of (our player) got tackled around the head and we got nothing, why did (our player) get a ban when he did the same tackle. I was simply using it as example to show that it is how the MRP use their interpretation of a rule to decide the outcome. I'm sure Goulding a co's lawyers will be loving this, especially now the RFL have come out and said that if they review a tackle and deem it dangerous they can't change a rule mid season. Only strengthens a lawyers claim that they are failing to protect a players health. I would have thought that after 1 player has caused 2 season ending injuries and a further injury to another player,all in one game would have at least warranted a caution for him regarding his tackling technique. By the way, I'm not using this to say Knowles wasn't guilty as charged.

Author:	leedsbarmyarmy [ Wed Jul 26, 2023 8:19 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD 20 \| St Helens (A)
He does a legs tackle, one player goes high and he goes low, for me it looks a great tackle, its just unfortunate that Paasi gets injured.

Author:	rugbyleague88 [ Wed Jul 26, 2023 8:53 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD 20 \| St Helens (A)
It looks to me that Asiata made direct contact to Paasi's knee which caused the injury. I am not sure if he intentionally went for the knee or if he had aimed for the thigh but slightly misjudged it. It's a bit like aiming for the chest and misjudging it and your shoulder ending up catching their chin. I think direct contact anywhere near the knee needs to be banned because of the risk of injury. Players shouldn't be diving at the knees or legs either. I can understand why Saints fans dislike the incidents and would be upset if it happened to a Leeds player. Likewise, I am not sure whether it is in the rulebook that the 1st man in cannot tackle around the knee area and/or dive at the legs. I think players need to be more aware that if they tackle anywhere near the knees they run risk of a ban like any player tackling around the chest area risks hitting the players chin and copping a ban.

Author:	tad rhino [ Wed Jul 26, 2023 10:13 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD 20 \| St Helens (A)
isn't it above the knee? nowhere near the joints

Page 5 of 34	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	leedsbarmyarmy [ Wed Jul 26, 2023 8:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD 20 \| St Helens (A)
Even Wellens agrees - That tackle has left Wigan’s Mike Cooper out for the rest of the season and, iff found guilty at an Operational Rules Tribunal tonight, Knowles could face a long spell out. Wellens, however, is keen to ensure the issue doesn’t become a ‘trial by social media’. “We got a phone call from the Match Review Panel on Monday that Morgan Knowles had been charge with a Grade D,” Wellens said. “What I would say in this situation is no coach or player wants players to suffer injuries but injuries are part and parcel of the sport. Ours is a collision sport and things can go wrong at times. “I know Morgan Knowles as a person and how tough he plays the game and how honest a person is. He doesn’t go out on the field to injure players. “I came off Twitter 12 months ago now for good reason, rugby league is about opinion and everyone has them. What social media does is it gives everyone a platform to share that opinion.