Joined: Jul 06 2009 Posts: 9680 Location: Somewhere under the salary cap
didn't seem like much at the time.. but when you watch it back you can clearly see that its a crusher tackle.. im sure the lad didnt mean to cause injury with it.. and its probably down to poor technique rather than malice.
But the rules are the rules for a reason... its those types of tackles which could lead to a broken neck.... if a warrington player would have done that i would have no qualms whatsoever with a 3 match ban.
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Anyway it's done now, so let's hope the 9 fit/not banned players we have left will do the business next weekend. I would play the cleaners in the pack, and move Koppy to FB and Burgess on the wing outside Manu. Then I'd close a couple of turnstiles at 3pm sharp and them old lads can go on the bench. They could have their kit on under their coats.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Joined: Apr 09 2012 Posts: 1149 Location: City of Sails
Jeffries and Kearney at prop - London Broncos/Harlequins/Fulham* - * delete as applicable - don't realise what is going on till half time by which time they are 50 points down.
That is one thing you can always say with certainty about the Bulls - we never do things the easy way!
Joined: Oct 25 2010 Posts: 1523 Location: wireland
as i have said previously there is no intent it is just poor technique, which needs to be drilled out of him now before it becomes a habbit. At the end of the day he is only 18 and young enough to learn and i am sure he will gain more out of being punished for it than just letting it slide.
Joined: Jan 23 2008 Posts: 8028 Location: The Provident Stadium, Odsal.
wolfinwidnes wrote:as i have said previously there is no intent it is just poor technique, which needs to be drilled out of him now before it becomes a habbit. At the end of the day he is only 18 and young enough to learn and i am sure he will gain more out of being punished for it than just letting it slide.
This is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on here.
steamingbull02 wrote:Can't believe so many people are up in arms about this, very reckless what should have been dealt with by childs at the time, simply becouse it's not called up every time it's done in a match doesn't make it ok, funny how it's the same people who's bitching about batement were bitching about bridge maybe not being banned! Can't have it both ways!
Batemens a young kid with a hell of a future in the game, daft decisions this early in his career need ironing out as soon as Possible, feilden at a similar sort of age was also called for tackle technique, and I can remember everyone screaming foul of that too, helped him no end though!
Have a word with yourself mate!!! The difference is clear...bateman was completing a tackle( I agree it "could" have been worse than it actually was )..But Chris Bridge Intentionally struck an opposing player with the elbow, 1 game ban to batemans 3 games...Joke!!!
Joined: May 08 2002 Posts: 9565 Location: 10 mins walk from Suncorp Stadium
The judiciary is rightly taking into account the potential seriousness of the injury. If you forearm smash someone in the face as they're running, its virtually impossible to break their neck (as some have bizarrely suggested). You also can't break someone's neck by whacking them in the face with a forearm when they're lying on the ground.
What CAN break someone's neck is landing on their head from even a relatively low height with their bodyweight behind it, or having someone else land on their head to the same effect. The bodyweight makes all the difference to the force applied, combined with the direction of the impact.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 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
