I'll have a go, but im in a rush.

It started with Rob Parker for us many moons ago.

Essentially, picture someone trying to get on your back for a piggy back and failing.

They fall to thr floor, they have two way, one they fall keeping hold of you(you're now carrying their weight on your upper body,) and their body falls onto your legs and ankles behind, causing you ankle to bend and knee ligaments to go with it.

Thats roughly what philbin did on Saturday.

Option two is similar, the Knowles on cooper (an others) that he has gone off the side still goy hold of the upper body and gone to the floor, pulling him to the side, the centre of gravity is below his knee but something has to give so his knee bends inwards/sideways and ligaments get torn.

Have a look at the two explanations, and watch the Cooper vid, watch knowles body a couple of times then watch coops knee, then try and flex your knee in that direction

Ok, thanks.

Isn't any multiple player tackle going to be prone to injuries though?.. for example, if an attacking player is standing in the tackle, as Cooper was, and is dragging defenders with him on a surging run, then simply by the laws of physics there is a possibility that a dragged along defender may end up falling unintentionally?

I guess the job of the match officials and disciplinary committee is to decide in whether a player is acting deliberately in injuring a player?

The tackler grabs onto the player and deliberately lifts their feet in order to try and drag the player to the floor, using their own weight.

The problem is that weight, usually ed around the tackler's hip, drops onto the ball carrier's legs. Or in Knowles' case, the side of the knee.

When the player leaves the ground by picking their feet up, they no longer have control of the tackle, giving the technique a high chance of injury.

I'll.comr back to this after the gym. I did think this on Friday with the bachelor sin binning

Hip drop tackle is basically when a tackler falls with all his weight on to the tackled players lower limbs bringing him down in the process.

Cooper had beaten the 3 tacklers with a great surging run. Knowles had hold of him but I presume knew he was beaten (disciplinary panel to decide) and Cooper was through in a potential offloading position so fell on to back of legs with weight causing his legs to buckle and bringing him down.

Explaining was never one of my greatest traits.

I guess it's pretty much down to personal interpretation of the incident - I think Lussick doesn't help the situation, because he comes in from the side and leaves Knowles with a very limited scope for where he can go and, legally, his only option is to let Cooper go, but the natural instinct of a tackler will be the exact opposite of that.

I think he will have the book thrown at him, simply because of his record and that he has got himself a reputation, deservedly, through past misdemeanours, but in that Cooper incident, I honestly think he might have a reasonable argument that it wasn't intentional.

There's a video on nrl.com with the title "Key indicators of a hip drop tackle" (easily found via a search engine of your choice ) and with the description "Graham Annesley explains the key indicators referees and review officials are looking at when trying to classify a hip drop tackle". Which shows video examples of 'hip drop' and 'non hip drop' tackles (or at least the criteria which the Aussies are using).

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... s-tribunal 5 games each.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... s-tribunal 5 games each.

Do us a favour folks can we keep all the dudson stuff in the dudson thread now, and Knowles etc in here.

Cheers

Be interesting to see the minutes, and complaints from saints (that rhymes) philbin only got 2 games

Yeh looking forward to seeing that. Knowles grading was D 2-3 I know when it goes to tribunal that the panel can increase it. I’m wondering did Saints try to appeal the grading and then got stuck with the 2 extra games.

And over on Redvee it’s still a conspiracy, not seen this much conspiracy since the killing of JFK.

It’s comedy gold AGAIN. I almost feel sorry for the couple of fair-minded posters on there, must be exhausting.

Visions of Wellens following the ban stood in front of Cull and Co with his arms outstretched in similar fashion to his entire playing career.

Thanks, but I don’t go on often.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... view-panel From last week, so where are the Saints players that week. Someone should discipline the MRP for slacking.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... view-panel From last week, so where are the Saints players that week. Someone should discipline the MRP for slacking.

Knowles has been cited numerous times in the last 3 years.
3 majors also.
Jermaine McGilvary ( Hip drop,6 months out)
Chris Aitkens ( Chicken Wing, Salfords last game of season so don’t know how long injured)
Mike Cooper ( Hip drop season out possible career ending)

Philbin and Batchelor we’re lucky to get what they got because of previous records and injuries received not as serious though I’m not sure on Clifford of Hull FC.

That’s why I was banging on about Dudson just being stupid and letting the club and his teammates down. It was 3 matches max but previous record got him 5. It was nowhere near as bad as Flower who hit the Saints guy whilst he was already concussed on ground. Tom Johnstone will play this weekend.

And now walmsley as mastered that art..as well as playing the ball 5 yards forward from where he was tackled

In his defence though, five yards for him is just one step forward.

I've said all I need to say about the actual incident. The ban itself is clearly warped by three things (In that order).

1) The embarassment of the appeal last year. They've treated Saints differently to other clubs all year and this is another clear and obvious inconsistency with other decisions in the same match and others this weekend
2) The injury and Paul Cullen's relationship to Cooper. Typical RFL awkwardness allowing Cullen to be in that position. But the injury is the main drive for the charge. Without the injury, there is no charge for the incident. They have set a precedent now though that injuries are a factor in disciplinary outcomes.
3) His record. 44 citings in 5 years, not 2 years or even 18 months as people are making out. It's not that horrendous a record and if you remove the not-guilties and the silly (But clearly not dangerous) late hits, he's on about 5 charges in 5 years, one of which was the farcical holding the Salford player's arm behind his back last season. A monster he is not, far more reckless and cynical players in the league and in the teams involved in the derby.

Whatever your take on the incident is, I think we can all agree that giving Knowles the same ban as Dudson, who punched a grounded and indefensible player in his head/throat is simply wrong. Consistency and common sense with these decisions is something we'll never see until we get some competent people into the panel and the RFL in general.

I’m getting concerned for Saddened now this is a really testing time for him

You've been reading too much redvee, don't let yourself be convinced by their nonsense. Knowles (and the rest of the Saints squad) has got away with lots that he shouldn't have in the past few seasons. All that's happened is the preferential treatment has ended and now they're facing the same as everyone else. He has previous in terms of some really poor tackles, wasn't it him that injured mcgilvary for 6 months last season? Jow he has injured Cooper for 9-12 months and potentially ended his career, Johnstone didn't even need a HIA yet the same ban. I agree with mcgilvarys tweet that these tackles need to be outlawed.

Dudson was being a prat, be was hardly trying to maim Johnstone, but it was absolutely stupid, he's lucky that his actions didn't cost us the match on Saturday, but now he sits out for 5 weeks and so he still let's the club down big time.

I too had briefly thought karetaker had gone mad, but he's just quoting Saddened on RedVee