Having watched the 'Youtube' video on the Broncos site, I reckon Soward took exception to Greg's slightly late (but with both hands raised) challenge. He then appears to tackle Worthington from behind. I can't actually see any punches thrown by either player but Ben Thaler obviously did - he's right in the middle of the melee. So, presumably the referee's report has been used here, rather than an inconclusive camera angle. I still believe Thaler is the best there is, and am prepared to trust him on this one.

OK, we can argue that, if Soward hadn't tackled Greg, nothing else would have happened. Or we could argue that, if Greg hadn't gone in recklessly on Soward, nothing would have happened. As the EGP is available to both, it looks like no suspension for Soward, and three for Greg.

In some ways, we could benefit from this decision, as we have cover for Worthington, and I'd prefer Soward to be available for the Broncos against the rest of the teams!

Alan - there is no way Greg has gone in recklessly.

When Greg makes a move to tackle Coward, Coward has still got the ball in his hands.

When Greg makes contact,both of his arms are in a downward position.Coward draws him in and the ball has barely gone a meter at the point of contact.

Just to add to that. If Coward doesn't pass the ball,then it becomes a fantastic tackle.

Cokey,

Check the Youtube clip on the Broncos site, and freeze it when Worthington makes contact. His right arm is out and at head height on Soward. he may well have been committed to the tackle but his right arm is high.

Cover has nothing to do with it Alan.Sowards took the game into his own hands,tackled Worthington off the ball because he took one..Soward didn't expect to see red.Had Thaler not been in charge,he probably wouldn't have.

RFL disciplinary/review panel,do need challenging,and review/sentencing laws need to be clarified and fixed.No grey areas.No get out clauses like EPG,no reducing/increasing charges when it fits.What one see's another see's different.Fixed definitions required not available windows or exits to suit.

Alan - would you be kind enough to post a link? I just can't find it. I've found the highlights on youtube which is the angle that's already posted on here. At the point of contact his arms are in a downward position,but because of the nature of movement of the contact,his right arm has been forced back into a upright position. There is nothing sinister in that tackle. He was committed and it just looks worse than you are making out.

Trust me, as someone in West Stand South Worthington threw plenty of punches. Didn't see the initial incident as I was following the play, but when I looked back he was knocking seven bells out of Soward. Not saying he didn't deserve it like



on the bright side not short of quality centres - them and props a plenty

Well done Col. I trust you what you saw.That concludes the Grade C for me then.



The Grade A offence is farcical though.

Quote ="Cokey"Alan - would you be kind enough to post a link? I just can't find it. I've found the highlights on youtube which is the angle that's already posted on here. At the point of contact his arms are in a downward position,but because of the nature of movement of the contact,his right arm has been forced back into a upright position. There is nothing sinister in that tackle. He was committed and it just looks worse than you are making out.'" This is it - I hope! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYbyJWhunEk

Quote ="Cokey"Alan - would you be kind enough to post a link? I just can't find it. I've found the highlights on youtube which is the angle that's already posted on here. At the point of contact his arms are in a downward position,but because of the nature of movement of the contact,his right arm has been forced back into a upright position. There is nothing sinister in that tackle. He was committed and it just looks worse than you are making out.'" This is it - I hope! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYbyJWhunEk

Quote ="Alan"This is it - I hope! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYbyJWhunEk'" It's the same clip we've been watching all along. Alan - We have a difference of opinion.

Quote ="Alan"This is it - I hope! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYbyJWhunEk'" It's the same clip we've been watching all along. Alan - We have a difference of opinion.

No we arn't for the Salford game,your right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPbWxq6Lm40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPbWxq6Lm40

Very nice Frank.Does Soward get up and go tackle Worthington from behind,after they scored a try?

He did

So why are the RFL review panel missing it?They see the high one from Worthington,they see the punching on the deck.How can they miss Soward getting up,running and taking Worthington out from behind?

Give up with these men me,Koukash was right,they do need to go.No wonder the game is on a downward slope.

It wasn't a high tackle.

Looks that way, and I've just been to Specsavers recently too!

Still find it a bit farcical though, when someone trollies you from behind its an instance reaction to defend yourself. These guys are pumped up with careers on the line so they are on the edge to start with.

Late tackle seems borderline to me, but there must have been half a dozen in the game similar or worse that went unpunished

And whilst I'm at it, digressing slightly, but without knowing the rules how did the London guy not get 10 mins for pulling McNally down when he was backing up in the 2nd half, that looked a certain try in the making

Especially as they had been on a 'team warning' - although it was a good bit after that warning, and I don't know how long that lasts.

That's funny, Officials are sponsored by specsavers.

Good point that Alan, we were discussing that at the time and nobody seemed to know. We just seem to agree it was just at the refs discretion, but is there a time limit? coz we just didn't know.

C,mon reffy - We need your expertise on this one.

It's only a charge maybe the rfl have not watched the video yet ? Just a thought like!

Agreed Col. Sometimes it seems apparent they are looking/finding wrong doings for us.Like i said in an earlier post,we were the top of the league for poor discipline,so maybe they are being over zealous. Anyroad,I hope the the incident when soward did greg like he did, is reviewed and dealt with accordingly.

That is a sign of extreme paranoia.

So why has Greg been given a Grade A for what I can see doesn't warrant,and coward gets nothing for he's actions. That's not paranoia, that's a fact. I will repeat myself, Greg was committed to that tackle,and there was nothing sinister in it. I also saw patto get a yellow for an high tackle which was more serious than Gregs tackle and he got no charge whereas Greg got NFA EGP.Now can you try and give me an answer to it?

I still can't believe that Soward hasn't been charged at all for the initial attack to Greg from behind, with the ball not even in play.

It is even more clear on the LCTV footage (same angle, just slightly more zoomed out). Soward takes exception to the tackle and after London score he chases after Greg and aggressively tackles him to the floor from behind when Greg isn't even looking.

A blatant case of taking the law into his own hands and the act that instigated the whole thing.

How can the panel have completely ignored that and simply charged him with a grade A punching once they are on the floor.

It is just bizzare!