Re: Attacks to the head : Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:07 pm  

terryb wrote:

Perhaps I am off the mark but isn't a high tackle a high tackle irrespective of what you hit the head with. Does this ruling mean you could do a karate kick to the head but that is OK.

Any contact with the head is illegal.

Extract from the rulebook :

SECTION 15
PLAYER’S MISCONDUCT
Definition of 1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:
(a) trips, kicks or strikes another player.
(b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle
makes contact with the head or neck of an
opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

Doesn't matter if it's with the shoulder, it's still foul play.

Re: Attacks to the head : Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:25 pm  

dr death wrote:

Any contact with the head is illegal.

Extract from the rulebook :

SECTION 15
PLAYER’S MISCONDUCT
Definition of 1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:
(a) trips, kicks or strikes another player.
(b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle
makes contact with the head or neck of an
opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

Doesn't matter if it's with the shoulder, it's still foul play.

So why wasent ir punished ?

I personally felt it was a good hard hit. However you could quite easily kill a bloke with a blow to the head.

Re: Attacks to the head : Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:22 am  

dr death wrote:

Any contact with the head is illegal.

Extract from the rulebook :

SECTION 15
PLAYER’S MISCONDUCT
Definition of 1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:
(a) trips, kicks or strikes another player.
(b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle
makes contact with the head or neck of an
opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

Doesn't matter if it's with the shoulder, it's still foul play.

You have failed to note that on this occasion it was not intentional and happened because the other player ducked his head in either looking for this or just part of his technique either way as it was not intentional, reckless or careless there was no case here. I dont like Bailey but to be fair to him it was legitimate look at our players their shoulders will have hit heads many a time but the other team don't usually complain because it's just part of the game. Sadly Saints who will look for a penalty in the most legitimate of tackles do so a debate is formed like this.

Re: Attacks to the head : Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:24 am  

hula89 wrote:

You have failed to note that on this occasion it was not intentional and happened because the other player ducked his head in either looking for this or just part of his technique either way as it was not intentional, reckless or careless there was no case here. I dont like Bailey but to be fair to him it was legitimate look at our players their shoulders will have hit heads many a time but the other team don't usually complain because it's just part of the game. Sadly Saints who will look for a penalty in the most legitimate of tackles do so a debate is formed like this.

Maurie did not 'duck' into the tackle.

Re: Attacks to the head : Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:56 am  

Ashmeister wrote:

Maurie did not 'duck' into the tackle.

So he is a foot shorter than Bailey?

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:27 am  

I thought he was bringing his arm up - therefore an illegal tackle/challenge !

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:08 am  

{Hogan} wrote:

Agreed. Although Maureen didnt same to take the ball in with his usual venom. The tackle was legal and a great one.

He is not running onto the ball anything like he can do at the minute, which meant he was a sitting duck for Baileys shoulder charge.

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:27 am  

Does this new ducking rule allow Burrows to have his head taken off time and time again as it's Burrows fault for ducking?

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:34 am  

I hate bailey as much as anyone else but agree that it was a perfectly legal hit. The Guys on the superleague show seemed to make a big point of it being illegal etc but I really don't see what he did wrong.

Re: Attacks to the head : Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:48 am  

Ashmeister wrote:

Maurie did not 'duck' into the tackle.

He didn't duck into the tackle, but his Union-style low running technique didn't help.

It was a good tackle.