I actually thought Lomax offered a threat in the halves through his ball handling ability when running at the line. Barba who is about 3 yards slower than he was in the NRL still looked threatening in attack. Smith looked about 2 yards off the pace, and it showed when Wigan repeatedly attacked down that channel. They knew he was slow and exploited it with quick shifts. When he had the ball in hand they just let him run as they knew he could not go through a gap.

I personally was shocked that Fage was not on the bench, as expected him to rotate with someone else.

Looking forward the coach can now use the rest of the season to break through some of the youngsters.
Richardson needs to be given the last 3 games to help give him more experience, with a view to him partnering Lomax next season.

Fage i would rotate with Roby at hooker.

Smith needs to be used more as a senior mentor, like Wello in his last couple of years filling in when required.

I think Holbrook made massive mistake in his team selection and I really think it cost us the game.

In the biggest game of the year so far, we go into the game with a fullback that hasn't played rugby league for nearly 12 month and it looked like it. We had a brand new halfback partnership in lomax and the worst 7 in super league in matty Smith.

This wasn't the game to experiment. Ben barba should have been on bench with lomax fullback and fages and Smith (I'd pick Richardson) in the halves. We could have brought barba on if needed to win the game or if we was winning.

We looked like a team that was playing out 2nd game of the year with new players coming in and not a team playing in plsyoffs looking to make semis

Spot on mate, I said the same in the build up to the game that Barba should be on the bench to come on at some point and with Fage and Richie in at the halves with Smith left back in Wigan.

We had no creativity when we get near the oppositions try line, we just seem to run out of ideas and revert to the Cunningham side to side drivel. On that showing I am wondering if 'Cunningham Consultants' had rang Holbrook to give advice before the game....it sure looked like it, but the Ref didn't help either and had a shocker for me.

No charge, quite rightly, he came in from behind.

Laughable from the RFL.

Why?
Isa came in from behind and above the knee. It didn't look good on first viewing but watching it again it was legal. Whether that needs to be changed is another debate. And if so how?

So you are saying it was fine ? I disagree,it was targeting the leg of a stationary player being held up by two other players,no pentalty given. Amor hits Tompkins on the ground,a fair hit by the way,but gets penalised,Leuluai slides in with his feet,nothing given but worth a caution from the disciplinary,also he raises his leg as a player is going past,nothing again.

The game at the moment is a joke a no try in the cup final is a try in another game,a crusher tackle in the cup final is 10 minutes in another game.

I've not seen it on tv as don't want to watch it back but from what I seen on the big screen I thought he came in from behind which is legal..

Spot on Pete, that's exactly what happened and why there has been no further action. Unfortunately all this faux outrage is from people who don't actually know the rules of the sport and instead get up in arms about what they THINK should happen. The Isa incident was exactly right, the Amor penalty was also right (albeit a soft way to give away a penalty, I would agree), the Leuluai slide in was the only one that was given wrong...or not given at all in this case. I really wish people would read up on the rules before going off on one. The number of times I've read "cannonball tackle" in relation to this incident when it was nothing of the sort shows the depth of ignorance regarding the rules of the game.

If you're going to pose as the voice of reason and knowledge, you need to have knowledge. The cannonball tackle is a grey area. There is no clear definition of what is and isn't a cannonball in the laws of the British game (check for yourself

Isa would have been penalised had this rule applied. Instead, while we wait for our law-drafters to catch up in this country, cannonball tackles can only be penalised under the catch-all sub-section (I) "behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game."[/i

The disciplinary hearing - being entirely opaque and inexplicable as they often are - decided that Isa's tackle was not in contravention of this rule. It has nothing to do with some commentator-dreamt-up nonsense about behind the knee or in the crease, or any such rot. That's all meaningless tripe. For what it's worth, I think Isa was extremely lucky not to cause serious injury. His transgression was to come into the tackle at speed, when no speed was required (the carrier was stationary, and the ball held in the tackle). He was clearly trying to maximise impact on a stationary man, which is very dangerous when attacking the lower legs. I would have had no hesitation in sending him from the field were I reffing that match, on the grounds that it was at best negligent, and at worst a deliberate attempt to injure.

As for the Amor penalty, it shouldn't have been a penalty. There is no penalty for swinging an arm in RL. You can swing your arm as much as you like going into a tackle, as long as you don't make contact with the head. Amor didn't make contact with the head, and the man was not tackled. Indeed, had Amor not touched him, the correct decision would have been a penalty to Saints for a voluntary tackle, but you can wait a long time for one of those in this country, despite it being in the laws. It is true that Amor could have chosen to simply place a hand on the man on the ground to complete the tackle. So one could argue that there was a possible offence again under (I). But there is no offence for swinging an arm into the body of a player, whether standing up or lying down. Amor was penalised for doing something which is done in pretty much every single tackle in a game of rugby league. His real offence was that it seemed unnecessary.

What is odd, therefore, is that a harmless unnecessary act which contravened no laws either domestic or international (Amor) was penalised, while a potentially harmful unnecessary act which explicitly contravened international laws, but also has been held to be misconduct under section (I) in this country (Isa), was ignored.

I don't think the on-field decisions involved bias. I just think it was incompetence. You'd be surprised how many referees don't know the rules, and assume that there really are offences that commentators bang on about like "swinging arms". And Hicks had a poor match on Friday.

The decision of the disciplinary is bizarre, however. The squirrelling about exactly what angle the contact was with the leg is genuinely bizarre, given the way previous decisions have been based not on angles, but on the speed and impact with which the tackler attacks the leg, and the fact that everyone on that committee should have read the clear definition in the international rules, which Isa clearly transgressed. I can find no reason why the disciplinary would have ignored past precedent and international definitions other than to try to find a way of not banning Isa.

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!