Re: Puletua sending Off : Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:11 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

He could have just as easily busted his nose on impact with the floor, assuming his nose wasn't busted prior to that tackle. I can't say I noticed one way or the other myself.

He didn't take the rest of the worlds word for it He got it in the face , but it was his own daft fault.

Re: Puletua sending Off : Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:01 am  

Super League is becoming far too sanitised. Rugby league is a collision sport. The shoulder charge is legal and for me a great spectacle when you see the hits. Tony put in a superb hit and yet again Thaler sends a man off. The fight we had with yourselves, 3 sent off for a few punches. Disgraceful. Its part of whats made our game great. The big hits, the biff but now players will be far too scared to get involved through fear of being sent off. I subscribed to Premier sports this year and watch approx 5 games of NRL a week. There are far bigger shots and more regular every game that are celebrated rather than punished. At this rate in 5 years we'll be playing touch and pass. The sooner Cummings go's the better because all the excitement is slowly being drained out of the game and its the reffereeing standard thats killing it not the players.

Re: Puletua sending Off : Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:59 pm  

The changes they are making to the rules in the NRL and SL are simply bringing consistency by making contact with the head illegal, and - as it always should have been - the responsibility of the tackler to avoid. The reason for the change is down to possible future legal action. Its all very well players being gung ho about shoulder charges when they're young and fit, but given the medical evidence about the long-term consequences of hits to the head, the sport would be laying itself open to all kinds of law suits down the track if despite that evidence it didn't penalise players hitting the head.

The shoulder charge itself isn't being penalised - contact with the head is.

I've never understood the complete inconsistency that its apparently 'bad' to swing your arm into someone's face, but OK to hit someone square in the face with your shoulder, including all your body weight behind it. Suggestions that the game is going soft if that sort of contact is banned are ridiculous - how many shoulder charges are there during the average game? How many actually come off? They may look spectacular, but given the potential for injury (including to the tackler for those that do it regularly) and the high chance of being penalised or simply missing completely, I suspect coaches frown on them now.

Nobody is saying you can't go for a big hit, just that if you hit someone in the head then it is likely to be a penalty at least. If the tackler can't avoid smashing someone in the head then that's bad technique, just as a swinging arm is.

Re: Puletua sending Off : Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:05 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

The changes they are making to the rules in the NRL and SL are simply bringing consistency by making contact with the head illegal, and - as it always should have been - the responsibility of the tackler to avoid. The reason for the change is down to possible future legal action. Its all very well players being gung ho about shoulder charges when they're young and fit, but given the medical evidence about the long-term consequences of hits to the head, the sport would be laying itself open to all kinds of law suits down the track if despite that evidence it didn't penalise players hitting the head.

The shoulder charge itself isn't being penalised - contact with the head is.

I've never understood the complete inconsistency that its apparently 'bad' to swing your arm into someone's face, but OK to hit someone square in the face with your shoulder, including all your body weight behind it. Suggestions that the game is going soft if that sort of contact is banned are ridiculous - how many shoulder charges are there during the average game? How many actually come off? They may look spectacular, but given the potential for injury (including to the tackler for those that do it regularly) and the high chance of being penalised or simply missing completely, I suspect coaches frown on them now.

Nobody is saying you can't go for a big hit, just that if you hit someone in the head then it is likely to be a penalty at least. If the tackler can't avoid smashing someone in the head then that's bad technique, just as a swinging arm is.

In theory I would agree...although how many times in a game do we see tackles where contact is made with the head, a penalty is given but no sending off?

If you bring the rule in that any contact with the head is a sending off, it means any time there is a high tackle (even just a lazy arm or accidental contact like TP on Friday) it would result in a red card and it would spoil our game totally!

Just to play Devil's advocate, when Saints played Leeds at Headingley, Kevin Sinfield made contact with Tom Makinson's head, leaving him knocked out and requiring a stretcher from the field. Does that mean that Sinfield should have also been sent off?

Re: Puletua sending Off : Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:39 pm  

Just seen the TP hit, i cant believe they even gave a penalty for that.... Shockingly soft, like the red cards for the millenium magic fight. What is our game becoming... Back chat to referees, no physical contact, this is like La Liga.

Re: Puletua sending Off : Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:08 pm  

TP has been charged with a grade B offence which carries a 1 or 2 match ban. If he pleads guilty then he will probably get one match

Re: Puletua sending Off : Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:41 pm  

Grade B offence! Well if it's got this far it pains me to say it but he may be told by Saints to plead guilty and take the 1 match and lose him for Hudds, then back and rested for Wire.

However as far as I'm concerned he has no case to answer. Great shoulder charge, plain and simple, bad technique from the attacker. Running in head first against a bigger guy.

Busting his nose on TP's shoulder doesn't mean TP did anything wrong. It will be a disgrace if TP has to plead guilty when he is not a dirty player and never has been.

Re: Puletua sending Off : Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:52 pm  

Just ask yourselves one question. If Gareth Hock had done an identical challenge what would your reaction be?

There is no doubt that TP is a clean player however when contact with the head is made like that it is a red card offense. I enjoy watching a big hit as much as anyone else but it's the tacklers responsibility to make contact below the neck. TP on this occasion did not do that and rightly got his marching orders.

Re: Puletua sending Off : Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:55 pm  

Eastbourne Warrior wrote:

Just ask yourselves one question. If Gareth Hock had done an identical challenge what would your reaction be?

There is no doubt that TP is a clean player however when contact with the head is made like that it is a red card offense. I enjoy watching a big hit as much as anyone else but it's the tacklers responsibility to make contact below the neck. TP on this occasion did not do that and rightly got his marching orders.

If Hock did an identical challenge then my reaction would also be identical, i.e. nothing wrong with it, not even a penalty. The reason my reaction would be the same is that I am not a biased, blinkered, deluded fool.

You are either as I have described above, or a troll who needs to get a life. Either way, you're wrong.

Re: Puletua sending Off : Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:49 pm  

How is it that Michael McIlorum gets sent off for punching Elima in the face (surely an attack to the head?), has had previous sendings off on his record and gets away without a ban for an early guilty plea, yet TP with no prior red cards on his record hits somebody with his shoulder and will still get a match ban (even with a guilty plea)?

Not sure how it works but surely that is wrong?? What message does that send out, punch people and its OK but get a shoulder charge wrong and we ban you for 2 games??

Ridiculous and once again shows a lack of consistency by the RFL!!