A picture from probably the best angle has appeared on twitter. It proves there was no elbow but shows shoulder to head contact.

Nick Fozzard has called this a great hit on twitter and even suggested that If you want to protect your head you should run upright and not bent down at shoulder level!

I suggest Nick should probably be questioning the tackling technique and not the position of the ball carriers body.

Wonder if Fozzard approves of the Bousquet on Fages hit. Could've killed the lad by all accounts.

An attack to the head is against the rules for a reason.

There is nothing there to prove that the photograph was taken at the instant of impact.

In fact, judging from the angle of Chase's body his shoulder is not in contact with Hardaker at the time of the photo, and the picture was taken a few split-seconds after impact and therefore proves precisely nothing as to whether it was shoulder or elbow.

The distorted shape of Hardaker's chin does however show that there had very recently been illegal contact with his head.

Fozzard's as famous for leading with the elbow as he is for looking like Joseph Merrick, him giving advice on running technique is a bit like Fred Goodwin giving advice on money management.

It is turning into a ing-contest if Foz is jumping on the band wagon.

The image above is usless at proving anything.

It proves nothing of the sort.

If anyone has been hit on the head too many times it's Nick Fozzard.

Isn't Nick Fozzard the Cas Commercial Manager? Which would be worrying were I a Cas fan. But also doesn't exactly make him an impartial observer. Especially as he had such trouble noticing where defenders heads were when he was running with his elbow raised.

It's contact with the head. 2 game ban for Chase in my opinion and Tim Roby dropping to the Championships for a week or 2.

Roby is a touch judge at the Salford game on Friday.

I think it would have been harsh to blame Roby for not seeing it. We have stills and replays and people still think it ‘inconclusive’.

Am I alone in thinking that it might, or might not, have been a dangerous tackle of sorts, but even if it was, not in actual fact the worst I've seen on a rugby field?

Disciplinary will decide whether they think it was reckless/dangerous, Hardaker seems to be OK. I don't think I actually care.

The effect it has on RL discussion forums is oddly fascinating though. I'd like to pilot trial by RL discussion forum for criminal cases. Anyone want to give me some funding to do it?

You'd need to build a lot more jails.

That doesn't even prove it is the incident in question.

Chase made more than that one tackle in the game.

He was looking directly at it and bottled it ,too right he should be blamed its about time the officials were made to account for p!$$ performances across the board and Cummins should be sacked.
I've no problem with errors with when its blatant and ignored its not on and whilst there are no repurcusssions how are they expected to improve and pay better attention.

If Roby has seen it, and bottled it then yes he should be dealt with. But I think that would be a pretty harsh interpretation of the incident. I think Roby just didn’t have enough of a view to be sure as he would have needed to send Chase off and that would be a big decision in the context of the game.

I think the speed of the game and the rules of it make it pretty much impossible to referee on your own. I think it is imperative that we get the VR at every match ASAP (and accompanying camera angles) with the Ref being able to consult with him at any stage he wished. If that game is on Sky we have the facility and a trained and qualified person, for that incident to be dealt with immediately, yet it isn’t.

And yes, I agree with you about Cummings, the rules of the game don’t seem to help the referees referee the game.