That is two Wire full backs "wiped out" by Widnes players. If that wasn't contact with the head then I give up.
If Hock had made that contact, he would have been banned sine die.

But no-one is saying that there wasn't contact with the head, just that it wasn't particularly deliberate or malicious:

"Leuluai was not penalised for the incident at the time and the Rugby Football League's match-review panel have ruled that the player has no case to answer.

The panel's ruling was that the "player makes a legitimate attempt to tackle and makes contact direct to the head of opponent, however opponent is dipping while trying to re-gather ball".

It baffles me that we've had endless debates on these boards about "return of the biff", "hardman enforcers", "game going soft with outlawing of shoulder charges" etc then want to throw the book at the opposition when something happens to one of our guys.

How often is contact with the head deliberate/malicious? "Biff" and dangerous play aren't the same thing.

So, let me get it straight. Matty Russell carried out a vicious attack on the Widnes player's shoulder with his kisser by dipping into the tackle.

The discipline committee must have had there dark glasses on again as you can see that Leuluai clearly dips his shoulder going into the tackle, which for me is a deliberate shoulder charge with the intention of taking Matty out of the game.
Does a player have to get paralyzed or suffer a career ending injury before the RFL clamp down on these instances.
The same goes for the insidious "Cannonball" tackle practiced on a regular basis by a certain team just of the M6, not far from Warrington, if they are losing and can't win by fair means, cripple a player. This tackle is banned in Australia, why not here ?

I say Brady old boy , i'm with you on this , Russell's assault with his head on Leulai's shoulder was inexcusable !

Going back a few years Moz did Big Eorl at Huddersfield with a monster tackle without being any where near his head or neck & it resulted in Eorl not playing any further part. Big hits are a legitimate part of the game but any upper body/neck/head contact that could potentially maim cannot be tolerated & there should be no part in RL for players who practise these methods or coaches who encourage them. Do we really want see players paralysed for life or worse & could players who caused such injuries live with themselves . It is no consolation ,after the act,saying "What happens on the field stays on the field " & wondering why your victim is maimed for life.

The RFL needs to act now ,this is real life not a video game where the victims gets up & walks away !

Potentially only 3 games left, got to go all out now.

If I didn't know better it could look like the Rfl are covering up the ineptitude of the officials. The VR said there was no contact to the head despite having plenty of time to review the footage as Russell was out cold.
If they had correctly identified the contact with the head Widnes would have been a man down, irrespective of intentions/dipping player.
The post match reactions of Carney and Wells summed up the situation perfectly when compared to recent sending-offs.
If there was a ban dished out this week, some awkward questions would have been asked about the effectiveness of the video refs especially as Jon Wells highlighted at half time they had made a mistake with the 2nd Widnes try.....

I agree with bacon. This smells of protecting the ineptitude of the VR involvement. No blame on Thaler he asked them to look and clrarly they were incompetent.

I know we don't like to talk about Union but when the ref goes to the video they also look at the video and then they can make a judgement on the incident themselves, can this happen in league or is it out of the refs hands once it's past on?

Anyone see ask the ref tonight ? Twenty minutes and 4 very Shit non important questions answered and then that's it

I believe once its referred "upstairs" that its out of the refs hands. Personally I would like to see it where the on-field ref simply tells the video ref which angles etc to play so that he can make the decision. Afterall, he is the one who knows exactly what he thinks he might or might not have seen.

Contact with the head is a high tackle and therefore a penalty

TS is quoted by the BBC as saying ..........."I don't want anybody to get into trouble...but I thought it was handled poorly on the day and I think it's been handed poorly ever since." For the full article www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/29341643

TS is quoted by the BBC as saying ..........."I don't want anybody to get into trouble...but I thought it was handled poorly on the day and I think it's been handed poorly ever since." For the full article www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/29341643

He is spot on and how people especially thr rfl are taking the view that there is no case to answer is ridiculous!

Well said Brian Carney and Phil Clarke on Boots n All

Carney was very animated and described the RFL as incompetent.....

Anyone see Backchat? Only person who said there was no case to answer was Stevo - what a muppet!

I must admit. Naively or not, I didnt realise that the match review panel and disciplinary panel were two different 'divisions' until Boots N All. Crazy.

The RFL is really making itself look disjointed, as an organisation they seem to be incredibly disorganised. This episode makes it appear that there is a total lack of leadership. No wonder they can't sort out the officiating of the sport which for too long has been absolutely atrocious.

For anyone that hasnt seen it :- www1.skysports.com/watch/tv-show ... ian-carney My opinion, there`s a little more than incompetence involved here with regards to the review panel.

For anyone that hasnt seen it :- www1.skysports.com/watch/tv-show ... ian-carney My opinion, there`s a little more than incompetence involved here with regards to the review panel.

Quote ="the fucitolbladderwrack"For anyone that hasnt seen it :- www1.skysports.com/watch/tv-show ... ian-carney My opinion, there`s a little more than incompetence involved here with regards to the review panel.'" Very well put by Mr Carney. Just a shame that nothing will be done :-/

Quote ="the fucitolbladderwrack"For anyone that hasnt seen it :- www1.skysports.com/watch/tv-show ... ian-carney My opinion, there`s a little more than incompetence involved here with regards to the review panel.'" Very well put by Mr Carney. Just a shame that nothing will be done :-/

Stevo has lost it he appears to believe it's the all about the Stevo show, in the recent past he has been calling for the RFL to do something before a player gets hurt, in Australia it used to be called thugby, now all has changed you now have to prove intent he's got more side steps than Brian Bevan, another comment by one of the Sky commentary team on the day, that is a near perfect tackle, given the circumstances it was totally insensitive and poorly judged.
Well done Carney for setting the matter straight also John Wells for showing it how it was, no player can take those type of tackles on a regular basis unless of course there's no intent, time to move on Stevo and take another with you.

I'm glad Russell is ok, and yes none of us want to see players getting hurt, least of all by foul play.
However the calls on this that the tackle was reckless/dangerous are wrong..on several counts.

Firstly the tackler makes a legitimate attempt at a tackle, it's very clear that he goes to wrap his arms around as part of the tackle.
Secondly, the 'height' of the tackle/impact point IS at elbow height, literally just above normal waist level.
I freeze framed it with inches between the players, Bridge is standing not a few feet to the right as seen in the original live angle so determining both players 'height' and the impact point is quite easy.
The tackler himself is in a stooped position (so TS call for players to bend their backs is valid already in this instance), he cannot do anything else with regard to that.

Thirdly, you cannot have an expectation of a tackler (or indeed an attacker) running in to deviate in that split second between a player being upright to one that might or might not be much lower. At the very very best with an expectation of an event happening it takes 0.7 seconds for the brain to 'react', this can easily be 1.5 seconds (there are plenty of papers out there if you want to check). Then the brain has to move the body that is in motion whilst trying to predict on the fly what an opponent is going to naturally do (which is what happens in ALL aspects of the game including tackling). In this case the player has to react to something that unfolds in front of him (Russell misjudging the catch & having bent legs & leaning forward at impact) in too short a time for him to deviate. He could not predict or 'second guess' that Russell's body position would be vastly lower than normal.

To suggest he dipped or leant in to use the shoulder directly to the head is so far from what actually really happened.
I can understand why Wire fans might think it is, it's your player and of course you're being protective..we ALL want players to be safe, but we also need to understand that some outcomes ARE unavoidable in a collision sport. This was one of them.
Yes we want tacklers to take the majority of the responsibility to ensure the person with the ball doesn't get hurt illegitimately, (there is also a responsibility on the attacker too) personally I never felt the need to shoulder barge in my short career as a 2nd row but loved tackling as hard as I could. Yet I understand that nasty outcomes happen that cannot be avoided and the expectation that players can magically just fly out of the way or move their bodies in such a way knowing how an opponent is going to be positionally in a tackle is just not a reality.

As an aside, wearing of head gear has no validation with regard to protecting anything except cuts. Indeed head gear can potentially amplify the shock, increase brain rotation injuries and worse case makes players take more risks than without one or indeed (wrongly) legitimises them to play when they really shouldn't be..