Re: Rangi Charged : Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:45 pm  

frank5613 wrote:

Well he serenely is not Hard

His Tweets are that of a 14 year old schoolgirl. Gone down alot in my estimation has Hardaker. He should take a leaf out of Ryan Hall book. He got creamed by a trio of Tigers defenders yesterday and took it on the chin.

Re: Rangi Charged : Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:58 pm  

illy wrote:
Both feet off the ground

Wrong, myth perpetuated by serial idiot Terry O'Connor.

Sorry I was wrong he was on his tiptoes and launching himself.

illy wrote:
arm still swinging forward after Hardaker is going down

If by "swinging" you mean "lifting" then yes, it's this thing called momentum, it happens in the MAJORITY of hits.

NO I mean swinging, that is why I put swinging and not "lifting". Also the arm lifting from momentum normally results in a penalty for a high tackle.

illy wrote:
Hardaker knocked out cold, how can people say there was no head contact.


1. No he wasn't, the Sky highlights show him talking to Chase and he walked off the pitch.
2. Concussions occur when the brain impacts the inside of the skull so you don't need to make contact with the head to cause a concussion - whiplash can do it.

Being knocked out cold can be from a one second or longer it has nothing to do with being able to walk off the pitch, he was knocked out and came round. Concussion who has mentioned that apart from you !! Are you trying to imply the hit was worse than I am.


illy wrote:
The ref did not think it was fine or it would not have gone on report, (he was not sure).


Please learn the rules of the game before you start spouting stupid lines like this, putting an incident on report means the ref either: A) Did not see it at all B) deemed the act to be illegal but not worthy of a card but worthy of a video review...Tim Roby judged the tackle to be legal, hence his decision of knock on, Castleford head & feed at the scrum.

I know the rules of the game hence why I put "he was not sure", on report is used for when the officials do not have a clear view or just want to bottle it.

illy wrote:
rian Mc was very composed after the game and only said he wanted to see it again. There was no demanding this or that. The tackle reminded me of the one last year when chase broke the jaw of the Featherstone player.

He also didn't need to talk about it the way he did; himself, O'Connor & Hardaker have made it a prejudiced case now and in a real court of law it would be thrown out straight away due to comments made by the mentioned people.

Club coaches have every right to talk about the game and any incidents that occur during that game, he was calm and did not say anything about the tackle apart from wanting to watch it again. As long as coaches show respect to other players and officials then what is your problem. In a real court of law come on grow up, people do talk in the real world.

It was also nothing like the hit on Ropati, have a nice day and please learn the rules of the game.

And the difference between the two tackles was ??????

Re: Rangi Charged : Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:16 pm  

"And the difference between the two tackles was ??????"

One was a swinging arm the other was a shoulder charge ?

Re: Rangi Charged : Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:23 pm  

illy wrote:

[color=#FF0000]Being knocked out cold can be from a one second or longer

So you was close enough to know he was knocked out from 1 second to lets say 3/4 seconds. Thats how long it took to hit the deck. He was alert straight away when he hit the floor. So for that split second of taking the hit you know for a FACT he was out cold......yeah right.

Re: Rangi Charged : Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:40 pm  

So you was close enough to know he was knocked out from 1 second to lets say 3/4 seconds. Thats how long it took to hit the deck. He was alert straight away when he hit the floor. So for that split second of taking the hit you know for a FACT he was out cold......yeah right.

I never said I knew for a fact how long he was out for, I was explaining to one of your other fans the difference between a concussion and being knocked out.

Re: Rangi Charged : Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:43 pm  

Watch the tape on Sky. Hardaker clearly was NOT unconscious. He went down, he turned, he put his hand to his head. One key trademark of being knocked out is that as a result of the 'out' part your independent movement stops.... his doesn't. Ergo, not knocked out. Concussed maybe, but not unconscious, not knocked out.

Re: Rangi Charged : Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:06 pm  

After watching the replay over and over and also looking at the still showing the initially point of contact i would say that rangi has gone in for a text book shoulder charge, hardaker has fallen forward and they have clashed heads. A similar incident for con mika resulted in the ruling 'players goes to make legitimate tackle and accidently makes contact with head' 'no further action' the only reason i can see that panel has charged him for is that leeds have kicked up such a stink they feel they have to do something.

Some leeds fans smarting from defeat may disagree but there are certain things we can say for without doubt, chase did not go in with the elbow as hardaker and a number of leeds fans all over the internet have stated. chases feet have not left the floor as stated by o'connor and a number of leeds fans. Hardaker was not knocked out as stated by the leeds coach.

Chase has aimed his shoulder at the chest of hardaker and hardaker as fallen into the tackle, had hardaker remained upright as he was when chase committed no contact would have been made, and there is no way that chase can pull out in the split second before hardaker falls into the tackle.

The club should fight this and if the disciplinary committee is fair there should be no ban.

One thing that has come out of this is that players should be told not to comment until the rfl has passed judgement on incidents such as this, it unfairly prejudices the case before its been reviewed. If you are allowed to claim you have been elbowed in the face, players have been knocked out etc when there no truth in it whats to stop players making things up about every tackle hoping to get the tackler cited?

Re: Rangi Charged : Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:39 pm  

pyeman wrote:

One thing that has come out of this is that players should be told not to comment until the rfl has passed judgement on incidents such as this, it unfairly prejudices the case before its been reviewed. If you are allowed to claim you have been elbowed in the face, players have been knocked out etc when there no truth in it whats to stop players making things up about every tackle hoping to get the tackler cited?

A rational and excellent post...

Extending the point, what are the chances of a disrepute charge being brought against an individual who has clearly been disingenuous, seemingly in order to fuel the flames of suspicion against a fellow professional?

Re: Rangi Charged : Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:09 am  

Disco wrote:

A rational and excellent post...

Extending the point, what are the chances of a disrepute charge being brought against an individual who has clearly been disingenuous, seemingly in order to fuel the flames of suspicion against a fellow professional?

In fairness though, Nick Fozzard has also been all over Twitter, trying to defend Chase - that could be perceived as trying to influence the disciplinary outcome in exactly the way that is being condemned on here.

Unfortunately, the instant nature of modern communication, coupled with the lack of brainpower that is sometimes involved, means that there'll be indiscretions of this nature more and more often; as I've discovered in my own business, trying to stop it is like tilting at windmills. The genie is out of the bottle, so to speak.

I suspect that if Chase does get a ban, his previous conduct will be an aggravating factor and not many people could argue with that.

Re: Rangi Charged : Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:58 am  

Gronk! wrote:

He also didn't need to talk about it the way he did; himself, O'Connor & Hardaker have made it a prejudiced case now and in a real court of law it would be thrown out straight away due to comments made by the mentioned people.

You do talk some drivel. Anyone would think it was going up in-front of a public Jury for them to decide.

The guys got form for this so he's going to have to explain himself. For me the video evidence was inconclusive.