well at least his injuries aren't as bad as first thought.

You really are special aren't you?

See this is the issue, the ref's mic clearly picked up him saying "shoulder to shoulder, no contact to the head, it's a knock on". Well you only need to view it once to realise that there definitely was contact to the head, and that can be further proved by the injuries sustained.

Regardless of whether the head was directly attacked (it was) any tackle that results in a player knocked out cold before he hits the floor, and needing a stretcher with a neck brace and an oxygen mask cannot be legal in this game. I hate the current shoulder charge rule as much as the next man, and I certainly don't want us to lose the last bit of biff in the game, but that incident was a straight red any day of the week - especially after 2 similar incidents have resulted in straight reds in the past few weeks

I agree with Wigan fans: Russell should get a short ban and letter about his technique for the temerity of keeping his eyes on the ball while an innocent opponent is trying to him.

Russell wasn't in possession when he got smashed. There was direct contact with the head. If Moon & Walmsley a send off, so was that. And so was Flynn.

If you look at the hit Webster took when I think it was Soliola caught him full in the face with his shoulder. Under the contact to the head rules, that was also a send off.

The inconsistency in the use of video refs is concerning. Both the Moon & Walmsley send offs were looked at several times by the VR, but Thaler chose not to.

There's also the issue of what should have been a try to Widnes following the hit on Russell. The decision was knock on against warrington. That meant it was free play to Widnes & they appeared to score off it. A fundamental error from the officials not to check this.

Ganson & Child awarding the Flynn try was so utterly shocking an error, you have to seriously question the competence & integrity of these people.

I find Cummings interjections in commentary to be laughable most of the time. Makes the game look stupid & reveals just what a pathetic agenda he had in place when in charge of the match officials department.

The VR was not asked to review it by Thaler. Leuluai had a responsibility to make sure he did not smash a player not in possession of the ball. He should have gone for the ball, not the man who didn't have it.

Having spoken to the touch judge and got his opinion Thaler was heard speaking to the VR through his mouthpiece to get his opinion and then commenting on the VR's opinion of the incident afterwards (repeating back what the VR had said to him to confirm the opinion) before he announced his decision on action to be taken to the players. It didn't show replays on the big screen but he did get the VR to look at the incident and ask for his verdict.

I don't agree at all that this is what happened. The VR's didn't review the footage & offer an opinion.

The whole Russell didn't have possession of the ball argument is a bit of a silly one. It's nothing like the Walmsley one, it wasn't a late shot. In slow motion it will look bad but at full speed, had Russell caught that ball it would have been a brilliant tackle. Unfortunately Russell knocked on and there was no way in hell Leuluai had time to pull out of that. Of course I'm not blaming Russell before the Anti Wigan brigade jump down my throat. I hope Russell has a speedy recovery but there was absolutely no intent in that at all. I think it's more of an unfortunate accident than anything else.

If. He'd been going to tackle him, it wouldn't have been a problem, but he wasn't, he was putting a shot on, with the shoulder, he'd already decided what he was going to no, and that was smash him, not tackle him.

I said it was reckless last night on here, it wasn't but it was careless.

If he had gone for the ball at the last second it is not inconcievable that they would have collided head to head, resulting in potentially a more serious injury to both

Yes ML was going to put a big hit on Russel, but that is not outside the rules, it was Russel moving forward that put him in a position that resulted in his injuries, just bad luck

If he had gone for the ball at the last second it is not inconcievable that they would have collided head to head, resulting in potentially a more serious injury to both

Yes ML was going to put a big hit on Russel, but that is not outside the rules, it was Russel moving forward that put him in a position that resulted in his injuries, just bad luck

If you listen again to Thaler throughout the aftermath of the incident (admittedly made more difficult than it need be by the Sky team talking over the referee) it's absolutely clear that he did consult with the VR, and made certain that he understood what the VR said, as well as asking for the view of the tjs. Players asked him to go to the VR, and he confirmed that he 'had looked at it'.

Whether you agree or not, he did. Thaler asks the VR "are we going with the knock-on or are we going with the contact", he later points to his earpiece and says "I've got it from here, knock on", and then several times, "they've viewed/reviewed it, no foul".

That's when the verdict changed from 'no contact with the head' (clearly a mistake and he only says it once), to 'no foul play' (which he repeats any number of times). And that's the crux of the matter. There was no foul play, no intent, no 'attack to the head' (as I've seen people claim). It was a clumsy, ill-timed collision caused by the speed of Leuluai's chase and the fact Russell knocked on and lunged forward and downward for the ball.

If Russell had gathered the ball it would have just been a well-timed, good hard tackle, but his forward lunge reduced the distance between the players unexpectedly. You can see Leuluai react to this by turning his head immediately prior to collision. It came too early, too hard, all timing out the window.

Not all incidents like this are foul play, regardless of severity of injury. We don't penalise when heads accidentally collide with hips, knees, elbows or indeed other heads and for me this is no different. 'Blame' is not the word to use but the position Russell put himself in is what resulted in the collision.

Again though, I expect the RFL will feel they need to send a message and will take some form of action.

Mistimed, unfortunate, unable to pull out of it, any other opinion is surely by the by.

If I put out a straight arm on say someone like Eorl Crabtree I'll hit him in the chest, if I do it to Burrow I'll clean him out.

Can I use the excuse well I did the same tackle last week on Crabtree and no one said anything?

There needs to be a duty of care, if you make a mistake you hit the head then you're off.

If I run over someone in my car can I get away with by saying I didn't mean it, no.

Direct contact with the head in that type of situation should be a red, intended or not, otherwise we may get someone like Wane with his at the edge of the rules training turning it into a tactic.