Hmm. Except, none of the words "illegal", "high" nor "tackle" appear in the charge.

As the RFL can't be arrsed to put the decision up, I am at present going by the Sporting Life report, which includes."

Now, I'm estimating that about 50-100 milliseconds elapsed between the first contact, and O'Brien's head striking Scruton's shoulder. I find it confusing because a shoulder charge is thus held to have been both legal, and reckless. Please explain, to save us simple souls with less insight from our confusion.

They banned me last week me for responding to a few insults with a few of my own, after I suggested Liam Farrell was a great club player, possibly not big enough for second row, but with every chance of developing into an international front row. They are like Leeds fans, with a sense of entitlement to superiority, but without the intelligence or wit to carry it off successfully. A number of them are everything I dislike in RL fans.

From Sky Sports (whose journalist I believe actually attends the hearings) guilty of a reckless high tackle on Castleford's Gareth O'Brien.

The Disciplinary panel listened to the argument and felt that tackle was not serious enough to warrant a Grade B charge and downgraded the offence to Grade A. They then imposed a fine but no suspension."

Clear enough?

Why dont we all just give this a rest now, all we are doing is going over the same old ground.

He was found guilty of a guilty of a reckless high tackle, whilst we deem it as a shoulder charge, this will give the RFL enough resource to ban shoulder charges which will bring them inline with the rest of the world (NRL, RLIF), and as the world cup is over here in Oct we cant have to different rules - our players will follow the Brit rule and get penalised whilst the Aussies wont.

Lets move on and focus at the game we have coming up on sat, against as saints team that is smarting at only having gained 3 pts.

Not one bit, as you haven't answered the specific question I asked, at all.

I will try to, though I'm a bit confused what the specific question is!
Scruton was found guilty of a reckless high tackle.
This was due to the fact his shoulder made contact with O'Brien's head.
If Scruton's shoulder had made contact with ONLY O'Brien's shoulder, the tackle would have been legal.
However, as it made contact with O'Briens head after the shoulder it was deemed an illegal high tackle.

Well I STILL think Chris Joynt took a dive...

You actually beat me too it. What is it with threads on here with three words in their title, with the last one being "tackle"?

As everyone seen the picture of Scruton been tackled by 2 Cas players on the T & A website.

Wonder what Red Hall make of that

Does not count. The Sky muppets did not go into a state of collective apoplexy about it, so it never happened.

It was, How can a shoulder charge have been both legal, and reckless.


Let me stop you right there.
The charge as on RFL site is
"Law 15.1(a) (Strikes - Strikes with shoulder - Reckless) Grade B" which was downgraded to A



Wel, if you can't comprehend the point, this won't get far. But I did set out clearly why it was the head that contacted the shoulder, and not the shoulder to the head. And I explained that a head/shoulder contact cannot of itself be illegal, simply because if a player dives into an opponent headfirst, that would equal a penalty against the innocent opponent, which cannot be the rule.

That is why it is confusing. Either the tackle was legal, or it wasn't. We are told it was. Now do you follow?

Hey well, at least we are all talking rugby on here again!

And bickering with OTHER teams' fans.

Anyway, more importantly, any news on that Away shirt yet?

Give it 10 matches

We should have told the Aussies to stick it.

It's our game we invented it. The day they invent their own game (I don't count Gaelic football played with a Rugby ball on a Cricket pitch BTW) they can then dictate the rules.