: Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:51 pm  

fredie wrote:

so whatmough is too blame for leeds loseing

Who said that?

As an aside if dimensions of players are taken into account when deciding if a tackle is legal or not may I suggest that the spear tackle against Cunningham wasn't illegal as he is too fat?

: Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:55 pm  

G1 wrote:

You're thick.

Thank you

G1 wrote:

You've been told, on several occasions ,that a tackle above the shoulders is illegal. I've asked you a question on this very thread about where it says the ball carriers height or body position is relevant. You've failed to answer.

I don't where it says it, probably somewhere near the section where it says the the player's body position isn't relevant, i.e. the body position isn't mentioned, hence the reason for a debate. Or, in your case, for repeatedly saying "You're thick" instead.

G1 wrote:

Don't try and pretend you're attempting to engage in genuine debate. To do that you would have to consider the points being made by others and respond to them. You're just repeating, ad nauseum, the same old stuff that we've all answered.

I am considering the points made by others, you are refusing to consider the points I'm making. I know that a head high tackle is illegal, I'm just trying to raise the subject of what the ruling should be when the impact with the head is caused by the tackled player ducking or falling rather than the tackler's technique or intent. But again, please just feel free to say "You're thick" instead of thinking about it and responding.

G1 wrote:

Which means you're either being deliberately obtuse or you're thick.

Thanks again, I'm going to start believing you soon.

G1 wrote:

I did try and engage you in proper discussion on the subject but you weren't interested.

No you didn't. I'm the one trying to stick to the subject, you're the one just hurling abuse.

: Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:57 pm  

The rule book is not up for debate. You've been told what the rules are. Do you think the RFL will amend them retrospectively just because some troll disputes them on here?

I'm with Gareth, you're thick.

: Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:01 pm  

Harry Pinner wrote:

I'm just trying to raise the subject of what the ruling should be when the impact with the head is caused by the tackled player ducking or falling rather than the tackler's technique or intent.

It's stil a penalty for a high tackle. The tackler has still made contact with the head of the opponent, albeit not intentionally. Bit like tackles where the arm bounces up off the ball and strikes the head.

I'd be surprised if it merited anything more given the predominantly accidental nature of the contact, but it should still be penalised. AFAIK there's nothing in the laws about where the tackler intended the contact to be, just where it was.

: Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:33 pm  

Harry Pinner wrote:

Thank you



I don't where it says it, probably somewhere near the section where it says the the player's body position isn't relevant, i.e. the body position isn't mentioned, hence the reason for a debate. Or, in your case, for repeatedly saying "You're thick" instead.



I am considering the points made by others, you are refusing to consider the points I'm making. I know that a head high tackle is illegal, I'm just trying to raise the subject of what the ruling should be when the impact with the head is caused by the tackled player ducking or falling rather than the tackler's technique or intent. But again, please just feel free to say "You're thick" instead of thinking about it and responding.



Thanks again, I'm going to start believing you soon.



No you didn't. I'm the one trying to stick to the subject, you're the one just hurling abuse.

Apologies. Its' just that a lot of thickos post on here and it can become a little tiresome.

I know I should try harder and be more patient.

I appreciate you're not a regular thicko to these parts so I should've given the benefit of the doubt to you.

Anyway, Andy Gilder ha succinctly stated the point. Feel free to address it. Its' a point that has been made repeatedly throughout the thread and ignored by you but hey ho.

: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:49 pm  

Blame Peacock for Burrow geting knocked out me Granny would have sent a quicker pass out.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:52 am  

BOYD2 wrote:

Blame Peacock for Burrow geting knocked out me Granny would have sent a quicker pass out.

I'm amazed that a player of Watmough's talent couldn't manage to tackle legally.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:17 pm  

I've only just managed to view the tackle from a few different angles. My take on it was that it was a high tackle. Hence penalty. I don't believe it was done with any intent, and I think a big, legal, ball-and-all hit was the intention. He got it wrong, something for which I understand he later apologised to the player concerned. It merited a penalty for an illegal high tackle and no further action in my opinion.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:22 pm  

El Diablo wrote:

I've only just managed to view the tackle from a few different angles. My take on it was that it was a high tackle. Hence penalty. I don't believe it was done with any intent, and I think a big, legal, ball-and-all hit was the intention. He got it wrong, something for which I understand he later apologised to the player concerned. It merited a penalty for an illegal high tackle and no further action in my opinion.

And not only in your opinion. It's one that has been expressed consistently throughout this thread already.

Nicely summed up and welcome to the party.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:24 pm  

tvoc wrote:

And not only in your opinion. It's one that has been expressed consistently throughout this thread already.

Welcome to the party.

Thanks. Sorry I was a bit late getting here. Traffic was a bitch. As was not having Sky.