Quote: sergeant pepper "Haha what a cop out. It's pathetic the lengths people will go to just not admit the refs are wrong.
You talk about flawed logic, but like others have pointed it, it was a shoulder charge. Last time I checked you can't shoulder charge anyone. If Field doesn't slip, it's still a reckless tackle. Not sure what's so difficult to understand about that, or how that doesn't factor into said mitigation. If he goes feet first into his head it's a red. If he goes shoulder first it isn't. Great selective logic that. Well done.
If we're all about stopping head contact, then it doesn't matter if it's accidental, "mitigating" or downright thuggery. It's all got the potential to cause a brain injury. This seems like COVID logic. It's dangerous so don't go to the pub to drink, but it's ok to go if you have something to eat. You either accept there's a risk and crack on, or you don't.'"
You're all over the place. You want people to admit refs are wrong and then complain about the mitigating factors that are set by the governing body. They've removed 'reckless' and they've also removed any reference to intent. It's simply - is contact made with the head? Is it direct? Is it forceful? Is the ball carrier falling?
Its a shame that car insurers arent keen on the 'accept there's a risk and crack on' philisophy - would have saved me a few hundred quid this month. Unfortunately the insurers of the sport aren't keen on that idea either. No-one is happy about that - the players aren't even happy about it. The consensus amongst players seems to be that they'd be happy to accept the risk as they know what they're signing up for. Insurance companies aren't happy with that in small part because of the number of lawsuits. That's what is underlying all of this and no amount of dummy spitting or name calling is going to change it.