Sparky1967 wrote:
Curries tackle is ball and all.
Fusitua has his feet planted facing an onrushing defence. The kick hangs in the air. What do you expect Currie to do, pull out.
Fusitua needs to get in the air and force an illegal tackle. Currie then either pulls out or gets red carded.
The difference is this incident happens with the players facing each other, tensed expecting collision.
The Dwyer incident he hits from behind with Widdop not expecting it. He’s got to wrap his arms around like Currie.
I agree both tackles can cause the same injury, but they are the rules.
I’ll put it another way round is Fusitua makes the same tackle on Currie, this board thinks what a great tackle.
That's exactly what I expect if he's incapable of tackling Fusitua legally. The onus is never on the ball carrier to do anything other than hold on to the ball, using this logic it's easy to argue that Widdop shouldn't have been dipping, if he'd been stood upright he'd have forced an illegal tackle to get hit in the head.
The big difference that I can see between the Dwyer and Currie tackles is that one
could have caused serious injury and the other one
did cause serious injury. In both incidents the tackler was at fault, in both incidents it was accidental and a touch unfortunate, but they were both cases of foul play and it beggars belief that Currie's has gone completely unpunished.
As for the disciplinary panel suggesting to him that he goes lower next time? Why not just say that to Bentley and let him get away with it as well? It's not like he wanted to hit Widdop in the face. Going lower next time doesn't remove Fusitua's concussion, it doesn't give us a world class winger next week, it doesn't give us the benefit of playing against 12 men for ten minutes. The whole incident has been handled terribly from minute one when the video ref didn't alert Kendall and Leeds didn't take the lad off.
