Said for years that should a player deliberately injure his opponent which prevents him playing then the player who inflicted the injury should get a ban for the same time as the length of the injury.

That would change players' attitude towards their opponents.

And that's why we need to be careful about saying Knowles "knew exactly what he was doing". I don't believe he "deliberately" injured Cooper and I don't think you can say that/prove that for the majority of foul play that results in an injury, most are lazy tackle technique or split second brain explosions.

Aye, banning people based on them intentionally hurting people would be next to impossible to prove. Incidents like Flower on Hohihia, Westwood on Green, Newton on Gilmour and Long and Dudson on Johnstone are the types that could fall in to that category but not Knowles on Cooper. The issue with Knowles is that he’s putting completing tackles above players safety. There is a risk of injury in any tackle but he’s increasing that with his poor techniques, but you could never say his intention is to injure people.

I was thinking in particular of Isaac Luke on Rangi Chase as a deliberate attack on a limb trying to injure the opponent.

Knowles needs to learn to tackle properly, that way he wouldnt get banned as much as he does

I think you equally have to be careful of mixing up "knew what he was doing" and "deliberately trying to injure" as they are not interchangeable. Maybe "knew exactly what he was risking" would be a better way of phrasing it. I believe he knew what he was risking by raising his legs but I don't for a second believe that translates into him deliberately trying to injure Cooper. However you can't accidentally raise your legs in that situation...it's a deliberate and conscious act... so, in that sense, he knew what he was doing (or risking if you prefer).



We should be careful not to hang, draw and quarter him for something he didn't intend (deliberate intent to injure) but, equally, the actions he did intend (recklessly risking another player's welfare) shouldn't be excused just because he didn't intent to injure.



It's a balancing act which I feel, in this instance, the tribunal have handled pretty well.

I don't think that sort of thing goes through your head with that type of tackle. I genuinely think it's all about stopping the player that's getting away from you.



It carries a high risk of injury but I think it's totally different to a swinging arm or shoulder charge for example where you know what you're trying to do.

I disagree Egg. You definitely decide to put all your weight on someone. It's not an involuntary action at all. Let me put it this way. Next time you're with a mate grab him by the shoulders and tell him to start running. I absolutely guarantee that your feet will drag along the floor unless you purposely lift them. Similarly attempt to pull him down with your feet on the floor. Use all your strength. See if your legs accidentally pop up. Again, I absolutely guarantee they won't.



It's an action you have to decide to take. There's no question about that whatsoever. It's a simple matter of physics.

You've misunderstood me.



I'm not saying you don't decide to lift your feet off the floor, I'm saying you don't think about the risk of injury. Your sole intention is making the tackle which as you say you're struggling to do.



With a shoulder charge or swinging arm your intent is to hurt your opponent (not to injure them btw) to win the battle.

Singleton out for 8 weeks.



Should play Hill on Sunday as surely he’ll be needed over the next few months. Best to start in a lower intensity game.

Agree.

yes