Did TP actually challenge Mounis? It looked the other way around to me.

I suppose players had better be careful from now on in when an opposition player runs at them with their head down. Might even be better just to step aside and hope they fall flat on their faces. At least the grass can't be banned.

And there is still no footage showing definitively that TP made contact with the head of Mounis. So I suppose assumptions are now forming the basis of decisions too, which is dodgy ground.

Given that he pleaded guilty, I think you can stop your refusal to accept that there was no contact with his head. It's making you look daft.

I'm not refusing anything. I'm going on what I saw on TV.

When the HKR player smacked Turner in the face on Monday night it was very clear to see - fist hit face. There was no angle shown on Sky which provided that level of proof.

And Saints opting for an early guilty plea doesn't automatically equate to him being guilty. They pled guilty when Robes was charged last season but in fact it was Scott Moore who did the damage in that tackle.

I disagree that it was similar. Puletua was practically stood still where as Inlis sized him up from about 20 years away and hit him at full speed. Inglis' elbow also appeared to make contact with the head which didn't help matters.

If we are going to start banning people for a standing shoulder block, we will be banning them for anything 'rough' in the future. Play nice boys!

He pleaded guilty because the system is a farce. You plead not guilty and they ban you just to prove a point. In that situation they are never going to accept a denial because it would invalidate the decision of the officials and they would never allow it.

I agree, the system is sh*te, players plead guilty to reduce the punishment, even though there may be no guilt in the so called offence. They know that rulings are seldom overturned because that would mean that officials GOT IT WRONG and that would never do. It’s Popeye the Thaler-man who should be judged. Why will they (Thaler & Co.) never admit later that they got something wrong?

As confirmed on the Saints website. Rush has stated that they pled guilty 'under duress' because they didn't want to risk the two match ban. He then goes on to explain how it wasn't like Sam Moa's.

rlSee here.rl

It would appear that Rush and the club are as daft as me then!

I think Saddened was more the point in that as the referees interpretation of a bad tackle goes worse there is some form of protectism by the disciplinary to the ineptness of a referee.
I,m pretty sure if the referee had put the incident on report, the disciplinary would have gone with a warning letter concerning shoulder technique, but as he was shown a red card the disciplinary had to show justification to it.

Where does he say that there was no contact with the head there?

They could have gone with sending off sufficient.

Agreed, the game is becoming soft.

We'll have players diving like footballers next.

And those berks in the commentary box aren't helping either.
I was watching the FC/KR game the other day. Jake Webster was struggling (albeit quite dramatically) to get the tackle off the top of him and Eddie nearly wet his pants.
"Jake Webster's elbowing *insert player's name* - oh my golly gosh!"

An expanded statement on this from Rush and TP in this week's League Weekly. Worth a read.

Trying to think who put the shoulder charge in last night, was it Cloughy.