That is nonsensical. The original tribunal believed the player had to move his trunk to avoid injury because of pressure applied by Knowles, but because the player moved his trunk to avoid injury and keep his shoulder within the natural range of motion, Knowles was not reckless in applying the pressure?

This is the equivalent of arguing that a person can drive the wrong way down a road and if people successfully swerve to avoid them, they have not committed an offence.

the paragraph is not even coherently drafted. What an embarrassment.

Why is it mad? I could fall flat on my and be fine but my feet could be above my head. If you think it's mad, probably best to explain why, or, well, you look mad?

I think in terms of tackling technic there will be many more occasions where the hips are above the head.

If a players legs are on the ground you can't physically spear or tip tackle them.

Lifting the legs is where the issue comes I. As it maybe fine bit it can easily go wrong as other players in the tackle and the tackled player themselves cant then control the tackle with forces moving in many different directions.

I think the refs have a duty here as if motion is stopped, the call for held should be quicker.

There are many times were the motion is stopped and whilst the players continue to wrestle no held is called, resulting in very late offloading or tacklers continuing to wrestle or lift in an attempt to complete the tackle.

For me if forward motion is stopped then that should be held.

What's unbelievable? Seriously, what did I post there that triggered you?

I found the whole day disappointing. no atmosphere outside, no act on before the start.
I found it all subdued compared to every other time I've been