RLFANS.COM - The World's Most Popular Rugby League Website

very perceptive FA. clearly it was deliberate, so deliberate that Deacon saw it coming and moved out of the way. And in doing so ensured that Joynt unnecessarily fell to the ground. so on the face of it both conditions met. and so clearly, against all the values that made England great, nautural justice, sportsmanship, never cheating or taking drugs, not betting on your team, etc etc it was not a voluntary tackle.

However it was not a voluntary tackle for different excuses (I simply cannot use the word reason in this context). The letter I got back from the RFL as a response to my "we was robbed" letter to them querying the decision actually made no reference at all to deliberate and unnecessary. What it referred to was some arrangement that the RFL and referees and clubs had come to at the start of the season regarding tackles. They had come up with two options, one chosen by Saints and epitomised by them the whole of that season and the Joynt voluntary tackle. IIRC you could either throw yourself at your tackler and down in which case because it was a fast PtB the other side were not as tightly refereed for infringements eg not square etc or choice no 2 you stayed upright and the opposition had to put you down but they were mercilessly refereed for infringements in the tackle and at the rather slow PtB. Each club had to elect for one or the other. Saints elected to throw themselves to the ground. So Joynt was perfectly entitled to throw himself at Deacon. But Deacon was not entitled to deliberately move away from the tackle, ie a voluntary non-tackle.

I know that this sounds as if I have made it up. Well, actually the RFL have made it up. I wish I had kept the letter so I could have posted it up, but I kid you not, the RFL - in fact Stuart Cummins - explained it that way. I was so disgusted I burnt the letter. In essence, because it was a non-tackle, it was therefore not a voluntary tackle. And I can point to a bit of circumstantial evidence, that Saints that season threw themselves at the tackler on numerous occasions, and it used to annoy the hell out of me. To be told that the RFL had told them they could do that was like putting a match to Stanlow Refinery.

And for those of you about to post a response, yes I did write back pointing out that nowhere in the rules does it say that a player has to make a tackle, so they were talking complete dribble, but I did not get a reply. perhaps they were fed up with being told they were idiots.