ganson put both teams on a warning then carded the next offence.
compare that to bentham who put wigan on a warning. wigan then conceded the next five penalties but no card. at least ganson was consistent for both sides. all you can ask for is consistency unlike bentham who needs to grow a pair

That's true of every tackle though, it's very rare for a forward on forward tackle with momentum behind it to be a legs tackle.
Mika was trying to put a hit on Amor, the fact that he nutted him is just unfortunate for both parties.
A ban would be very harsh.

You want him to go in low on a prop running the ball back from a KICK OFF? Nobody is going to go for the legs in that situation, because if you go for the legs in that situation you're going to collect a knee or a hip and you're the one who ends up sleeping or with 20 stitches

There's very good reason that you don't see head-on tackling at the waist or below in the game very often, it's because it's effing stupid and coaches don't coach it. It's pretty much unheard of to tackle at the waist or below in a 1 on 1 kick-return scenario like that

Both players were at fault. Mika had his head on the wrong side of Amor, it was a technically bad effort. But equally Amor is a forward, a prop has no business taking the ball up from the kick off and trying a pirouette.

Accidents happen. You can't just dish out punishments whenever someone has an unfortunate injury. If Amor wasn't cut and got to his feet to play the ball not a single person here would have anything to say about the tackle. Head clashes are a fairly regular occurrence in the game, especially when people get wrong footed

why would you want to ruin a good game by sin binning for small time penalties which wire also did?

It would be if the attacker nutted him

set a dangerous precedent by giving a penalty for that it was an accidental had clash, its a by product of the game and it will always happen. if thats a penalty the best 2 props to have are ian kirke and paul prescott as they get a head clash almost every game.

Can you read? Are you broken? Where did I say it's funny when a player is unconscious?

Wither's will have a banging head ache this morning! As for the Mika incident, it was a penalty but accidental. These things happen in such a tough, intense sport.

A penalty is a dangerous precedent? More like an innocuous outcome if you ask me.

However, I do agree that accidental head clashes will always happen, in much the same way that involuntary high tackles will always be made. Both worthy of a penalty and, in most cases, no more.

Deliberate for mine, he clearly is looking where he's putting his head, at best its reckless which as in law is equally blameworthy. Put him in the stocks ! Next case.

Any head clash will clearly be accidental 99% of the time. However, what parameters are there to say who is the offender? Most of the time the tackler is the one who comes off worse and the play is subsequently stopped. Injured
player receives treatment. Tackle count continues. No penalty. Does it become a case of if the attacker loses possession it then becomes a penalty? What I'm saying is, most head clashes don't often result in a penalty.

For the record. In theory Paterson's hand off in the first half was straight into (Tim Smith?) chops. Contact with the head? Try disallowed? Penalty?

No charge, accidental clash heads according to the RFL today.

Common sense prevails.
Probably a penalty, nothing more.

Yes, I can read thanks. Im just choosing not to get into a forum argument, and judging from your last post, thats what you're looking for in my opinion.