Senior got the right punishment according to RFL guidelines. However I do feel that from next season onwards they should upgrade 'kicking out' to a one match ban.

Did Mathers not set a precedent when he didn’t get banned for it against Leeds or Tomkins when he didn’t get banned for it against Wakefield?

Guess what Sam got…………..0 games and £300 fine

Looks forward to Fishsta response.

Quote ="Wheels"Senior got the right punishment according to RFL guidelines. However I do feel that from next season onwards they should upgrade 'kicking out' to a one match ban.'" The range of sanctions available to the disciplinary for a Grade A offence are: sending off sufficient (in a case where a player has been dismissed) NFA (answers on a postcard please) to a 1 game ban. Senior has been dealt with approprately, within the sanctions permitted for a Grade A offence. Do you feel carelessly kicking out should in future be a Grade B offence? I think coach McClennan tied the judiciary in knots with this submission: www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1954 Mr =#FF0000McLennan (who is this btw?)adds that it was just after half time. Was a slow ruck game. Coach wanted players to get some speed in the ruck. Player is a big guy and it is unusual that Keith was on his back =#0000FFand his head was facing the over way say so he was trying to get to his feet quickly. As an aside there have been previous instances where players have received no bans even when the range of punishment dictated that they should. www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=296 Grade D : Sanctions 2 to 5 game ban Multiple instances in the same match and previously warned about his technique in this area. Verdict: Guilty Santion: Nothing, Nada, Zilch, Bugger All

Quote ="Wheels"Senior got the right punishment according to RFL guidelines. However I do feel that from next season onwards they should upgrade 'kicking out' to a one match ban.'" The range of sanctions available to the disciplinary for a Grade A offence are: sending off sufficient (in a case where a player has been dismissed) NFA (answers on a postcard please) to a 1 game ban. Senior has been dealt with approprately, within the sanctions permitted for a Grade A offence. Do you feel carelessly kicking out should in future be a Grade B offence? I think coach McClennan tied the judiciary in knots with this submission: www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1954 Mr =#FF0000McLennan (who is this btw?)adds that it was just after half time. Was a slow ruck game. Coach wanted players to get some speed in the ruck. Player is a big guy and it is unusual that Keith was on his back =#0000FFand his head was facing the over way say so he was trying to get to his feet quickly. As an aside there have been previous instances where players have received no bans even when the range of punishment dictated that they should. www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=296 Grade D : Sanctions 2 to 5 game ban Multiple instances in the same match and previously warned about his technique in this area. Verdict: Guilty Santion: Nothing, Nada, Zilch, Bugger All

All players wrapped in cotton wool for next season.

An isolated incident and cue the OTT reactions.

So you think a one game ban is too harsh for a dangerous action on the field?

I think, in direct relation to the Senior incident, that the punishment he received was adequate for the crime.

The current ruling on punishment is more than adequate.

It's all about context.

Some legal tackles can be dangerous to the tackled - should tackling be outlawed?

Let's not be all OTT, especially on this incident. It is an isolated incident that been far more discussed than it should be.

Fair enough, however I don't think a one game ban would be too harsh for kicking out, I'm sure it would soon deter players from doing it.

But is it a deterent that's needed?

Do we have 'kick out' problems week in week out? Nup.

It's reacting to one incident. But when you look at the bigger picture I hardly think a review of this law is required when the current law suffices in my opinion.

I totally understand your point mate, but the fact is last Saturday the lad got kicked in the face and needed 8 stitches above his eye.

Even if these incidents are isolated, they still need some form of deterrent. A one game ban would be enough I think.

Bla bla bal Senior, bla bla should have been banned, bla bla disgraceful.

I don’t care what the muppets proclaim from under their stones, The RFL (for once) made the correct decision in accordance with their own guidelines.

Not really, in this instance the kicking out was obviousley more dangerous, i know what you mean, proper spear tackles where a player lands on their neck/head are far more dangerous, though if a few cm lower Tomkins could have been blind in one eye.
I agree with Coleys one match ban to be honest, but i think senior also should have had the same ban, unintentional or not.

Bla bla bal Senior, bla bla bla banned, bla bla etc.

And he could have caught a finger in the eye or clashed heads or landed on a boot. To be honest Senior was probably so used to being held down for half an hour every time he was tackled (like all the Leeds players) that he was probably surprised to find his legs were actually free from Wigan wrestlers...sorry..tacklers. The penalty dealt with it on the pitch. Can't see the fuss.

I got kicked by a player I half tackled as he lay on his back. I leant over him and he flung his feet in the air to right himself - bang stud through my nose like a hole punch. It was an accident. He wasn't trying to kick me..end of.

Potentially most things you do on a rugby pitch can be dangerous.

Has there been a clampdown on dangerous tackles which involve lifting players so they land on their neck or back? Yes. Did Coley perform one of those tackles? Yes.

Has there been a clampdown on players kicking out when they are being held down in the tackle? No.

You say a few cm lower and Tomkins could have been blinded in one eye. All it would take for a player to land awkwardly on their back and a player could be paralysed.

Coley performed a tackle that every player is aware they shouldn't do. Senior performed a manoeuvre that many players do when trying to get a quick PTB. I think that players should be forced to stop thrusting their legs out in the manner that Senior did as I think it is obviously dangerous and often a player only throws out their legs in that manner to try and con a penalty out of a ref.

But as I've said before, you don't start a clampdown on an incident by suddenly introducing bans for something in the week after the games are played. There was a time when tackles like Coley's would have been accepted and applauded as tough play. The RFL rightly outlawed the technique and after that players deserved bans for performing the tackle. They didn't deserve bans before the tackle was outlawed though, whether injuries were picked up or not.

The director of referees Stuart Cummins was on tonights Rugby League programme on Radio Manchester. He was specifically asked about the three major incidents, Peacocks tackle on Tomkins, Coleys tackle on Delaney and Seniors kicking of Joel Tomkins.

He said the first two were correct decisions, but Senior should have been sin binned for the kick.

He was sh#te Ref himself.
Seriously who cares what that useless c#*t thinks?
He's done f#*k all to improve the officials since he got his cushy number at Red Hall so i'd ignore anything that buffoon has to say.

he should resign

You obviousley didn't read what i said properly, as i mentioned proper spear tackles are much more serious...however in this incident it wasn't. I've said i think Coley got what he deserved as i think it was dangerous, whether he landed awkwardly or not that was just lucky. Coley performed a tackle every player is aware they shouldn't do, yes he did, so you then have to use the same reasoning for Senior, he did something every player knows thy shouldn't do, kicked out in the tackle, so it's unfair to jusitify it by saying many players do it. Isn't that why they should clamp down on it?
I'm not here to say it's unfair bla bla bla he should have been banned, makes no odds to Wigan in the end, i just think they should be more consistent etc.

Read the RFL report, they acknowledge everyone kicks out and think it should stop, they cant ban someone when in the past they have done nothng about it, particularly when it was accidental contact by a player who has an excellent disciplinary record AND the only ban he had before was very harsh

no one has been banned before, senior wasnt banned, that is consistent which is what you ask

to be honest you are contradicting yourself so much it's embarassing

Did that big-chinned drug fiend get done when he speared Disko that time? I can't remember!

Exactly. Spot on.

It's part and parcel of a tough game.

You can see all the impact injuries that easily backs that point up.

Yes, IIRC he got two matches. That challenge was off the ball though so more dangerous than the Coley one.

There was some controversy when Wigan tried to use pre-season friendlies to clear the ban (my memory is a bit vague about it) I think he may have missed one competitive fixture in the end.

I'll stand to be corrected though.

Whilst I think you meant "lose", yes, wholly possible. A kick to the head can cause many serious injuries, including to the neck as the head is used as a lever on the joint.



I'll come to the first bit in a sec, the second bit is the very least that should happen.



And nowhere have I said that was the right decision, either. So, yes, a dangerous precedent HAS been set, seemingly many times.



NFA = No further action.

My question is, and this is returning to Wheels' first point... how much worse can a kick to the head actually possibly be before the 1 game ban "standard" is reached? Does someone actually have to lose an eye / get their nose-bone smashed into their brain / kicked in the temple / have their windpipe crushed / miss 3 weeks through concussion before the 1 game ban is employed?

You can be banned more for a "careless" high tackle, why so lenient on a "careless" kick to the head?



See the last point I made. Blindness in one eye is one of the [iless[/i serious things that could actually happen.



An extraordinarily one-sided point of view. Players don't deliberately perform spear tackles because of the sanctions, players don't deliberately perform high-tackles because of the sanctions, therefore players shouldn't kick out because of the sanctions. Catching a finger in the eye or clashing heads can be accepted as an accident. Kicking out in the tackle can only be classed as careless, just like the above forms of tackle. The sanctions are inadequate.



They changed the rules for grapple tackles, so why can't they for kicking out?

Whilst a serious injury can occur from a spear tackle, injuries just as serious OR WORSE can occur from being kicked in the head. The difference is there's also the high probability of "Less serious" (but still pretty serious) injuries such as concussion, as a result yes, kicking out in the tackle is overall MORE dangerous than a spear. A player in a spear tackle would be desperately unlucky to receive a serious injury, a player getting kicked in the head is almost guaranteed to be injured in some way.

[i"The second most common head injury is concussion, caused by a blow to the head. If this occurs, the player should be removed from the competition immediately and should not be left unsupervised. Always seek medical advice and evaluation.

Concussion can be a serious injury and the International Rugby Board (IRB) rules state that any player who has suffered concussion can not participate in any match or training session for a minimum of three weeks and they need to be declared fit following a thorough medical examination before being allowed back to participate again."[/i

Put simply, something needs to be done, just as it was for grapple tackles. It's a serious offence, and as Cummings said, he should have been sin-binned at the time. What were the other bans this week for? Leading with the arm and a dangerous throw? I take it all back, getting kicked in the head is SO much better (!)

I mean come on, people. Get real.