Post subject: With Deepest Apologies - Bailey's Tackle on Friday
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:43 am
El Diablo
Club Coach
Joined: Oct 14 2004 Posts: 12106 Location: The Middle of the Land
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.
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.
Post subject: Re: With Deepest Apologies - Bailey's Tackle on Friday
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:52 am
expatrhino
Player Coach
Joined: Mar 11 2009 Posts: 74 Location: Cronulla
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
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.
The season starts in October. Until then, don't panic!
Joined: Oct 14 2004 Posts: 12106 Location: The Middle of the Land
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], tad rhino, TheBlackPearl and 172 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum