I watched the game back last night and sky are trying their best to get Walsh a big ban.

Having watched it back, I probably agree it's a ban as it's a dangerous tackle but not worthy of a big ban the sky team want.

I watched the leigh v Salford game and Robert Lui does a very simular tackle on 35:40 during first game and not a mention of dangerous tackle or big ban.

Imo when a player is lifted in the air and then thrown or let go, it then becomes dangerous.

For me, I think Walsh as was sin binned deserves 1 match ban

agree wasn't that bad and yellow card was right

I don't think it's worthy of anything really. I'm in two minds as to whether it's even a penalty. Walsh tackles him well, that is how you are taught to tackle, get under the ball. He didn't turn him to drive him into the ground. Of course it's potentially dangerous, but so are a lot of tackles that don't result in bans. It'll be interesting to see how they treat it. Luke's one was another borderline one. On one angle it looked a shoulder charge, although there was no contact with the head. On another it looked like his right arm was up around the player, therefore a legitimate tackle. On another it looked innocuous and more like he was defending himself against the ball carrier leading with his elbow.

Having watched it again. I'm with saddened on this. It was about 0.3 seconds worth of a tackle. He his hard and low. He does not turn him into a spear and he lets go in the air the millisecond the legs go up.

I'll take the yellow as some times the ref feels the need to make a statement. But that should be sufficient.

SKY did not stop with Walsh.

They also wanted Louie off.
Lomax off.
Thompson off.

It was basically a hate in for any Saints player slightly out of line.

The way they kept talking about Thompson being in trouble was disgusting. It was a head clash. The reason the player went off was because of an ankle injury.
They get a full report from the sidelines talking about the ankle injury and the commentators continue to say that it will cause Thompson problems later in the week.

It was the usual Wigan suspects stiring the pot too.

Oh come on guys all these conspiracy theories is a complete joke, all clubs claim it and more and more grounds are also getting on referees backs hoping they can change decisions, at the end of the day it is the review committee that makes the decisions? but I do feel referee's should make the decisions themselves, I like it in RU were the referee himself watches it on the big screen and speaks with the match official/video referee, next it will be all the review committee are season ticket holders at Leeds & Wigan LOL.

You forgot Swift should of been off too.

Let's be fair, this wasn't Wigan bias, this was Sky supporting Catalans because it gives them a story they can run with (the battle for 4th) which seem quite thin on the ground this year. Hence why Percival limping off on the 25th minute is only mentioned by the sky team on about the 46th minute (by Phil Clarke of all people!) yet Broughton seemed to be every third word at one point!

As for the Walsh tackle, it was as bad as Isas during the Derby. No arms between the legs, no drive through onto the floor, marginally above the horizontal, and lands on his shoulders. Penalty sufficient, the yellow I can understand but think is harsh, any ban would be way OTT, and trial by sky.

I think it'd dangerous when you lift like Walsh did and then throw/let go. When you leave go of the player, the is no control of the attacker at all.

It was nowhere near as bad as sky made it out. I think we need to stop this in the game tho as I it's career and life changing if it goes wrong.

As I mentioned in the op, I seen the same tackle by Robert Lui in the leigh v Salford but no mention.

In all honesty I think a yellow and one game ban is sufficient.

I have no issue with stopping these tackles.

By all means the RFL should say anyone lifting in the tackle is an automatic yellow with a 3 match ban to follow.
However they can't do it with 5 games left in the season.
There has to be time to let players adjust. In the off season they could introduce this as a rule, after the first 5 weeks of yellow cards and 3 match bans. The players would adapt.

I'm pretty sure it will be in the rules of a player lifts another player then throws/let's go then it's an offence.

I thought it was always about lifting between the legs but happy to be wrong

www.rugby-league.com/article/382 ... rs-charged walsh and thompson charged both grade c 2-3 games and have egp

www.rugby-league.com/article/382 ... rs-charged walsh and thompson charged both grade c 2-3 games and have egp

So both out of Fridays game along with percy.

Both Walsh and Thompson have been charged with a Grade C offence for a dangerous throw and a shoulder charge respectively, so we could be without both of them for the next 2-3 matches. (goons, Hull and Cas).

I think Walsh will get a 2 match ban but in mitigation he did not "throw the opponent (Albert) into the ground" - he lifted him slightly beyond the horizontal and the just let go and dropped him. So either not guilty or a 2 match ban.

Thompson got the Cats more agitated and his charge is "shoulder charge, secondary contact with the head of an attacking player (Horo)." Again with a 2-3 match tariff if found guilty.
It looked bad the first time I looked at it but it was clear the head clash was accidental and that the main injury to poor old Horo was him going backwards over his own leg through the force of the collision. Add to that the alleged shoulder charge which Sky made a big deal of.
However in the Sky slo-mo Thompson went in with his position "open", i.e. parallel with Horo's body position and not leading with his left shoulder so any suggestion of a shoulder charge is open to interpretation. When I "slo-mo'd" the Sky slo mo (and I assume the Disciplinary Panel does something similar; almost frame by frame, it looked even more a complete accident.

The whole incident was made worse by the Sky lot and the inflammatory comments by the Cantona look-a-like French coach.

Tellingly both players have decided not to use their EGP's indicating they both believe to be not guilty.
Finger's crossed

I think Thompson charge is a none starter.

He had one arm around the player and both players are equally responsible when it comes to a clash of heads.
In the end the injury was an injury to his leg, which had naff all to do with Thompson.

If they ban Walsh, then next match I watch I'll be submitting 26 players to the panel as at some point all players lift in the tackle.
There was no arm between the legs, so it really was just a solid hit. I would hope Saints have a good brief and can show that the man does not go past the horizontal.

Stolen from RedVee

Love it.