| WWW.RLFANS.COM https://rlfans.com/forums/ |
|
| With Deepest Apologies - Bailey's Tackle on Friday https://rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=401541 |
Page 1 of 14 |
| Author: | El Diablo [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | With Deepest Apologies - Bailey's Tackle on Friday |
Dear All, I know this has clearly been done to death, but I haven't trawled enough to find any coherent answers, so after a couple of sensible people reply, please lock to your heart's content McF. I'm afraid I have been incapacitated by a football injury (pansy biscuit bones I know) and hence have only been internet enabled today, and as such missed all the no doubt stimulating chat. To my eyes, Bailey's tackle looked perfectly legal. I'm not sure that kind of shoulder charge should be legal (my own private view) but as far as I'm aware it is. Is it just me that holds this view. I have seen a lot of posts about overreaction of various Saints fans to a high shot, and mentions of hypocrisy, but I am not clear whether people actually thought the tackle was illegal to start with. Again, apologies for (briefly) reopening this, if people from other boards with axes to grind could leave the thread alone long enough for a few people with brains connected to their typing fingers to respond, I'd be grateful. |
|
| Author: | SDB [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:48 am ] | ||||
| Post subject: | |||||
|
|||||
| Author: | tvoc [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
In my opinion, the challenge was illegal but not deliberate. Fact of the matter is, the tackler connected with the opponent's head and that is outside the laws of the game. The correct decision for me from Bentham would have been a penalty to St Helens. |
|
| Author: | expatrhino [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: With Deepest Apologies - Bailey's Tackle on Friday |
El Diablo wrote:Dear All,
I know this has clearly been done to death, but I haven't trawled enough to find any coherent answers, so after a couple of sensible people reply, please lock to your heart's content McF. I'm afraid I have been incapacitated by a football injury (pansy biscuit bones I know) and hence have only been internet enabled today, and as such missed all the no doubt stimulating chat. To my eyes, Bailey's tackle looked perfectly legal. I'm not sure that kind of shoulder charge should be legal (my own private view) but as far as I'm aware it is. Is it just me that holds this view. I have seen a lot of posts about overreaction of various Saints fans to a high shot, and mentions of hypocrisy, but I am not clear whether people actually thought the tackle was illegal to start with. Again, apologies for (briefly) reopening this, if people from other boards with axes to grind could leave the thread alone long enough for a few people with brains connected to their typing fingers to respond, I'd be grateful. Basically everyone with half a brain new it was legal (even some Stains fans). We got alot of know nothing feckwits from Lancs bombarding us with crap about him being dirty, cowardly and generally not good enough for Leeds. It took about 3 threads and about million replies (exaggeration) before the scousers were sent packing and the threads locked. As this one will be soon. Before they come back |
|
| Author: | sgtwilko [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
tez on boots nall called it how it was! |
|
| Author: | expatrhino [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
sgtwilko wrote:tez on boots nall called it how it was!
What did he say? Can't watch it all the way over here. |
|
| Author: | Longun [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Have I missed something? What tackle? I don't take much interest in meaningless league fixtures. I tend to wait until the 1st Saturday in October when games mean something, and Leeds have a good recent record in such games, unlike the Scousers. |
|
| Author: | El Diablo [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
tvoc wrote:In my opinion, the challenge was illegal but not deliberate. Fact of the matter is, the tackler connected with the opponent's head and that is outside the laws of the game.
The correct decision for me from Bentham would have been a penalty to St Helens. So use of shoulder, fine, but was first contact with the head? I didn't get enough replays on the footage I saw to be certain that it didn't hit his chest first. Out of interest, if you made a legal tackle with your arms around the opponent's shoulders, your shoulder could easily make contact with your opponent's face. Hence I presume the point of first contact is the key issue, though I may be wrong. I still think that kind of shoulder charge should be illegal, not really a tackle in my book, but that's a slightly separate issue at this point. |
|
| Author: | Gotcha [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
El Diablo wrote:So use of shoulder, fine, but was first contact with the head? I didn't get enough replays on the footage I saw to be certain that it didn't hit his chest first. Out of interest, if you made a legal tackle with your arms around the opponent's shoulders, your shoulder could easily make contact with your opponent's face. Hence I presume the point of first contact is the key issue, though I may be wrong.
I still think that kind of shoulder charge should be illegal, not really a tackle in my book, but that's a slightly separate issue at this point. Thats the key here. It was not "that kind" of shoulder charge, it was the same as anyother one like it. Difference was Mary went in with the head down. Had he been upright it would not have touched his head. |
|
| Author: | Knaresborough Rhino II [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
expatrhino wrote:What did he say? Can't watch it all the way over here.
Basically Mary ran at Ryan, he could have chosen to side step him but instead tried to run over him all Ryan did was stand there and brace himself for the contact. It's all Marys fault |
|
| Page 1 of 14 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|