: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:52 am  

tvoc wrote:

A shoulder into the head is (for me) another example of getting it wrong even if the game at large has a problem agreeing with my viewpoint.

i cant agree, baileys tackle was perfectly executed

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:01 pm  

Bailey's tackle is massive, apparently.

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:13 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

i cant agree, baileys tackle was perfectly executed

And legal apparently so I'll just have to be at odds with the game as it stands. So be it.

A headbutt, upper arm, lower arm, elbow, knee, boot to the head would all be deemed illegal but not a shoulder in this instance.

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:25 pm  

G1 wrote:

Bailey's tackle is massive, apparently.

Page 2 called, can it have it's joke back?

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:39 pm  

I know it's not meant but couldn't the official SL website have taken more care with it's news headlines

I know it's not meant but couldn't the official SL website have taken more care with it's news headlines

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:40 pm  

G1 wrote:

Bailey's tackle is massive, apparently.

I've heard that also.

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:49 pm  

Not having a go at Bailey or Leeds, but if a tackle that leaves a player with a facial/head injury, or knocks him out, is deemed to be legal, shouldnt the definition of what is legal be reconsidered?

Its quite common for players/clubs/fans/commentators to defend tackles on the the grounds that the initial contact was legal, but shouldnt it be the responsibility of the tackler to ensure that they do not end up making contact with the head? ie the tackler should leave a safety margin?

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:51 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Not having a go at Bailey or Leeds, but if a tackle that leaves a player with a facial/head injury, or knocks him out, is deemed to be legal, shouldnt the definition of what is legal be reconsidered?

Its quite common for players/clubs/fans/commentators to defend tackles on the the grounds that the initial contact was legal, but shouldnt it be the responsibility of the tackler to ensure that they do not end up making contact with the head? ie the tackler should leave a safety margin?

In which case then no-one would ever tackle Rob Burrow unless they started in a kneeling position.

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:52 pm  

To Cibaman, welcome to the debate.

I was beginning to think it was just me.

McLaren_Field wrote:

In which case then no-one would ever tackle Rob Burrow unless they started in a kneeling position.

Rob Burrow is tackled legally (on occasions) every week without anyone resorting to kneeling to do so..

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:57 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Not having a go at Bailey or Leeds, but if a tackle that leaves a player with a facial/head injury, or knocks him out, is deemed to be legal, shouldnt the definition of what is legal be reconsidered?

Its quite common for players/clubs/fans/commentators to defend tackles on the the grounds that the initial contact was legal, but shouldnt it be the responsibility of the tackler to ensure that they do not end up making contact with the head? ie the tackler should leave a safety margin?

No. Simply. If you attack the head, that's illegal. If you perform a sloppy tackle, swing a high one, that's illegal. If someone leans their head in, or moves their body into a different position, just before the point of impact, that's up to them. But should that be illegal? No. It's rugby league, it's meant to be played tough. Those slight margins are the rough and tough that's part and parcel of playing rugby. If you start down that route, what about injuries to the head or face that occur after the point of impact i.e. a head injury sustained when the player hits the floor, or from the impact of a secondry tackler?

This game is tough. This game is rough. I love it.