look at joe greenwood (saints) same tackle as sneyd (puts kevin brown out for the season) although rfl state there was twisting of the leg, saints dont employ a wrestle coach and the player didnt mean to hurt his opponent so found not guilty

I think that Brown had injured his ankle before the Greenwood tackle but IMV Greenwood targeted it because he knew that it was already injured.

It was a clearly dangerous tackle and I thought was worthy of a red card at the time. I can't see how there is any dispute over it really.

He's accepted EGP
Banned for Wigan.

You obviously watch nothing outside of super league.

That tackle is what you see each and every game in junior and amateur rugby. He could not have handled that tackle any other way, if he had not gone low and up then the attacking player would have ran straight over him. Never do I see refs even speaking to kids after a tackle like that.

The only time it is an issue is if there is more than one defender in the tackle, and the second player is lending the weight to put the tackled player in a bad position. What we saw Friday, was a player tackling one on one, and very well, and the tackled player moving his body to ensure a quick play when hitting the ground. It was that movement that caused the player to tip to the side. His arms were not restricted in anyway, and he always had control of how he landed.

I think Zak got it wrong in accepting the EGP and should have challenged the charge.

Did anyone see Zak's interviews post match? He was seriously NOT amused with Silverwood's amusement after his mistakenly pulled out the red card.

It's another example of how inept and inconsistent the RFL and their Disciplinary process is imo.
I've actually no problem with the sin binning IF we see it week in week out but we don't & i do wish the Clubs would unite and rip this whole process apart and put a straight forward no nonsense transparent procedure in place.

It has of course all been said - the RFL is a bluddy joke in its inconsistent irrational punishments.

You pick up the man, you and you alone are responsible for getting him back to ground in a safe manner. You may not like it, but that's the approach the sport takes and IMO it's entirely the right one for player safety.

While what happened to Burns may not be what Hardaker intended, and fortunately it resulted in no harm being done, it is right that the RFL have referred it to the disciplinary and right (IMO) that he got a charge out of it. I might have gone Grade A, but I've no real argument with B and a one match ban.

I don't really care what McIlorum did or didn't do. I don't really care what goes on in the amateur game. I don't want to see tacklers being unable to control a player once they get him in mid-air and beyond the horizontal. It presents an unacceptable risk of injury to the ball-carrier that the sport doesn't need.

Whole heartedly agree with everything you've said there aside from the McIlorum bit, because unless they clamp down on all these incidents they can't be taken seriously as a disciplinary body. The punishments dished out to Sneyd and Sims in recent weeks for acts of deliberate endangerment are not a significant deterrent, and that worries me.

Agreed, but the argument that player B should be allowed to get away with something he should be banned for because player A got away with it is facile. It would be nice to see some consistency, but that's what happens when you have different members to the MRP and the judiciary panels each week.

Sensible decision to take the EGP. I think we have enough without Zak on Thursday. After last week's results, a defeat at Wigan wouldn't hurt too much