For those in the know, can someone explain the difference between the tackles of Westwood and Fakir. From what I saw, they both hit the opponent in the mush. Why is one graded higher than the other?

Have a read of this

Looking at the document, seems Fakir is accused of being reckless whilst Westwood of being intentional.

Mmm.

So how do they know it's intentional?

Again, as I said before, there didn't seem anymore intent in the Westwood tackle than the Fakir one. If I remember correctly, Westwoods head went past the right shoulder of Carlaw and his arm followed, he wasn't even looking at Carlaw when he hit him.

Of course, I'm not stupid enough to think that if he isn't looking he can't intend to do it, it's just that I can't understand how they can come to the conclusion that Westwood intended to smash him and Fakir didn't.

I suppose that's why they have a hearing to put there case.

On a side point, it always annoys me when Stevo says he didn't pull the ball out deliberately because he wasn't looking at it, as if a rugby player doesn't know what a ball feels like when he has his hand all over it.

The fact that Westwood followed him to the ground and whispered something to the effect of "Have that" in is ear would appear to suggest some intent!!

It certainly won't help in his defence!!

I'll go for 4 games, a fine and a warning on future conduct

He is not a persistant offender by any means.

And then straight to Carvell & slapped him on the chest & game a similar comment.

Not trying to defend Benny as it was a bad 'un, but when you think about it, the law of averages will dictate he is going to get the odd one wrong purely by the amount of tackling he does.

I never said he didn't intend to hit hard, it's about the intent to hit him straight in the mush. It's debatable whether at that time Westwood knew where he hit him, just that he hit him and he stayed down.

Just because Morley didn't go to ground and didn't give Fakir or anyone else the opportunity to whisper sweet nothings, does that imply there was less intent?

Why should any injury sustained to the tackled player have any relevance to the punishment? So in a hyperthetical match and all other things being hyperthetically equal...

Rob Burrow lands a high hit (assuming he could reach) on Carvell and although it was a comparitive tap he just manages to hit the 'sweet spot' and knock him out cold.
In the same hypethetical match, Morley hits Webb with everything, but Webb has a thick skull and although a little groggy manages to stay on his feet.

Should Burrow receive the greater punishment simply because his 'victim' had a 'glass jaw'?

Sorry but thats rubbish. It was a shocker, it was deliberate and it was followed by a ridiculous episode of childish behaviour. I wasn't comparing it to any other incident. He should have been sent off and had he been I doubt we would have had "other incidents" to mention. Hopefully be will be punished accordingly, take his punishment like a man and perhaps in the future behave more like one!!

How can it be rubbish? Your opinion carries no greater susbtance than keith's. My snapshot view was that he caught the shoulder of Carlaw, then ended up catching him square in the face.

From a nuetrals point of view there was no 'shoulder' invovled.....it was straight in the mush......would expect a 3 game ban.

That is my opinion aswell TBH