Question about cannonball tackles.

Quote: Judder Man "I don't think its directly actually written in the super league rules, as cannonball, from what I can remember it comes from the international rules where its referred to as spearing into the tackle (cannonball) the point of contact must be above the knee joint, as the offence from Isa was directly into the knee joint it doesn't matter iff its front back or side its a spearing into the tackle (cannonball). The disciplinary has redeemed it as lacking significant force to do any damage but the intention to do possible damage still exists by the player.'"

You are correct. I never cease to be amazed by the number of people who will confidently assert a rule which doesn't actually exist.

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: www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/rul ... misconduct ). The only definition of a cannonball which exists is in the international rules, which defines it as follows:

"Spearing at the legs : when a player in possession is held in an upright position by two or more defenders, any other defender(s) must make initial contact above the knees/knee joint."

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."

The disciplinary process seems to have 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.

The decision of the disciplinary process not to charge and ban Isa is bizarre. The squirrelling about exactly what angle the contact was with the leg is equally 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 was, and remain, genuinely astonished that an obviously reckless challenge could be excused, apparently through the use of a non-existent caveat to a non-existent law.

Not for the first time, I find the RL disciplinary committee to be an entirely inconsistent, inexplicable and potentially corrupt body.