I recall Cummings on sky explaining the cannon ball tackle and I recall him saying you can attack the legs from behind as the legs naturally bend in that direction

We (as a sport) seem to generally ignore rules and instead decide how to interpret them instead. Going off what is written in the write ups from the disciplinary all forms of potentially dangerous contact focus on whether the joint involved was taken beyond its normal range of movement or not. By that reasoning to go in at the back of the knees would be considered legal.

As I said on the VT, I hate it when players enter a tackle in that way. If I could write the rules I would change them to make it an offence for any secondary contact below the waist. With that wording it is simple to officiate. The other one that imo needs more focus on is a crusher, probably only equalled in severity with a spear tackle with both potentially leaving players in a wheelchair.

The difference is in the amount of impact. You frequently will see a third man come in for the legs, but in nearly all cases, the impact will be minimal - wrapping the legs up to avoid them making ground, and making sure they're put to ground so they can't get a quick play-the-ball. Nobody has a problem with that. Isa could have taken an extra half a second, remained on his feet, and done the same to LMS. Instead, he launched himself at the legs at pace. It was deliberate, reckless and could have had significant consequences. Anyone who thinks he approached that tackle thinking "Oh, it's ok to cannonball at speed from this angle because I'm certain my shoulder will hit the crease at the back of his knee" has never played RL.

I've both played it and refereed it, and that tackle was a deliberate and unnecessary attempt to hit the man in the lower legs as hard as possible. It was intent to injure. Like I said, I understand Hicks's incompetence in real time, and then cowardice after the replay showed clearly what happened. But I cannot think of any reason for the disciplinary decision other than a collusion in avoiding a justified ban for Isa.

Hi RH. I won't quote your post as it's quite long but you state the reason it wasn't a cannonball tackle in your own post so effectively are agreeing with me even though you're presenting it as a rebuttal. It isn't a cannonball if initial contact is above the knee and, as you can see from the disciplinary report, that's exactly what happened. QED.


There may be no specific law against the swinging arm (unless to the head) but when you add a fist into the equation then there most certainly is, regardless of where it strikes! That this was a half hearted attempt from Armor is neither here nor there. Soft penalty, as I said in my original post, but a penalty nonetheless and entirely in keeping with the laws of the game.

The bottom line is this: You can argue any interpretation of the rules you like but only one man's ultimately matters and that's the referee's. I understand when people disagree but as long as his interpretation is consistent with the laws of the game, the rest is just so much hot air and, as I have pointed out twice now, they were entirely consistent with the laws of the game.

You can disagree with the interpretation all you like. That's your prerogative and, perhaps, the whole point of these boards. What you can't say though (and where I would take issue with your post) is that both these incidents aren't covered by the laws of the game. They clearly are!