You mean like you did when it was Chase?

Sounds like we aren't taking early guilty plea. Scruton just tweeted about getting to fight his case tomorrow.

It isn't "rubbish", it's my opinion, you mardy twot.

You may indeed be unsure, but my statement was based on the fact that I heard Ganson tell the Cas players that they'd had a look at it, and there was nothing in it. He could, I grant, have been lying to them, but I don't think so.

I have no problem with anything being reviewed in the cold light of day either, but if a top referee acting as VR says there was nothing in it, then a decision to the contrary makes him look an idiot and completely undermines him.

What a ref and a VR can/can't do is, on the QT, a purely academic question, we learned at MM that they tell each other whatever they want whenever they want to, and that clearly hasn't changed (which situation, for the avoidance of doubt, I would be perfectly happy with, in the case of things they have genuinely seen and the officials have missed).

If you watch the replay the only contact with the head is when O'Brien is hit on the shoulder and his head goes forward into the shoulder of Scruton

Good on him, I think it's the right decision. Whether the panel come up with the right decision is another question entirely.

The charge has nothing to do with the fact the tackle was late (though it wont help Scruton's cause), it is "striking with his shoulder to the head Castleford half-back Gareth O'Brien". The panel have watched the replays and come the the conclusion that contact was made with Scruton's shoulder on O'Brien's head.

do the panel who decide who comes up before them, actually hear each case that week?
I was under impression it was independent and changed week by week?

Interesting how all the noble Bulls fans are now deliberately misinterpreting posts to try & deflect attention from their earlier assertions that a fairly obvious late tackle was fair. The tackle I thought was deliberately late, therefore it was foul play, irrespective of if it was high or not (which I didn't think it was). There's bound to be a reflection in the panel decision based on the severity of the injury caused by an illegal tackle.
For me the interesting outcome is that Scruton will now probably be banned, whereas if it had been called at the time I think he would only have got (& deserved) a yellow. I interpreted it as the same as a late tackle on a kicker which I think is automatic yellow.

Edit - if what I am reading belatedly above then it wasn't late just high, which I disagree with.

It is rubbish, just my opinion you understand, when you state Scruton cannot be disciplined as there have been numerous incidents where players have been called up after the game.

Any views on BK being taken out on 47 minutes? Personally I saw not much wrong with it but it was a late hit without thr ball on attacking player that could have caused injury... where is the line drawn?

When it is not contact with the head, which is what Scruton is charged with (it makes no reference to the timing of the tackle).

Translation: "He is charged with striking shoulder to head, which I agree is ridiculous so don't know why I just posted the rest of that, and apologise to the noble Bulls fans I just had a go at".

PS If asked, I would say anyone would agree the tackle was marginally late, I don't see how you could argue against that, and if asked, I would not have objected if a penalty had been awarded, which point I am sure has already been made earlier on the thread by others.

I disagree it was "deliberately late" as I don't believe for a second there was any way Scruton could have stopped himself from making contact with O'Brien. I think it was you yourself who said he could have relaxed a bit and not gone in to him therefore quite as hard as he did, but by that point on the video it is arguable Scruton was already looking away, to his left, with head turned aside, so I'm not certain he even saw the ball go. I have jogged the video about a bit to see if I can satisfy myself whether he looked away before the ball went, it is just about the same moment, and I can't decide either way.

Also, the late challenge on the kicker is no longer an automatic yellow. A good rule change.

Interesting thing for me is that YOu didn't think it was high, but as I said previously, a very experienced and top official, with benefit of VR replays, analysed it and didn't think it was high. So where does this leave his judgment?

I am surprised at this. When it is shown in slow motion it looks late, but you have to remember at full speed, a second earlier and it would have been perfect timing.

For me i don't think there was contact with the head at first impact. Maybe i am biased but also defended Chase who i thought was hung drawn and quartered well before the Monday review.

I do find it worrying that one of our most experienced refs looked at the same video the review panel did, yet come to completely different conclusions.

When it comes the the hearing he will be found guilty (or not) with regards to making contact with the head. IF he is found guilty, the timing of the tackle will be put forward as an 'aggravating factor" which influences the sanction. IF he is found not guilty of contact with the head this "aggravating factor" will be irrelevant.

Could he get a ban just for the late hit? Or is the point of impact the issue here?