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?

No, the charge is making contact with the head with his shoulder. The timing of the tackle is an aggravating factor IF he is found guilty of the charge.

It's actually a bit of a farce that an experienced referee has seeked the advice of another highly experienced referee to check various replays and was advised that 'there was nothing in it'.

You couldn't make it up!

Oh so is it just contact with the head that can potentially career or life threatening injuries?

No, but contact with the head is more likely to cause brain injury than contact with any other part of the body, owing to the fact it is where the brain is located.

So the charge is basically because of the respective sizes of he players? Had O'Brien been taller it would not be an issue? Weird.

The size of the players has never been taken into consideration, it is the responsibility of the tackler to ensure they do not make contact with the head. I think it is why Rob Burrow is so effective.

Does he not have a head?

Oh well; if nothing else I was right about everything except scruton not being cited.
The irony if being called a chump and accused of playing the victim card by bulls fans is not lost on me at all at this point.

I believe he does, but the surface area below it is much smaller than most and players really have to bend their back to get to it.