Why plead guilty then ?.

To avoid a longer ban I presume.

Is there an extra tariff if someone contests the charge and they fail?
I must admit on the night I thought it legal but hadnt got the stomach to watch the game again so I deleted the match as soon as I got home so I cannot comment on replays of the incident

That's called playing the system. It is very rare for a player to be charged and not get found guilty. Whether you agree with the charge or not the sensible option given the next game was to take the 1 match.

The incident was replayed a number of times on TV and none of those showed any foul play. Someone has claimed a camera angle that showed otherwise, I'm sorry but I don't buy that, if there is another camera angle why did sky not use it.

Wigan fans in defending the indefensible shocker. Replays are as clear as day that the contact is shoulder to head. The clearest angle is from the back of Clubb and shows it as clear as day.

Ban much deserved - I doubt it helped his case the verbals he seemed to give Lineham on the floor.

If direct contact to the head was as 'clear as day' why was it not seen by Eddie, Stevo, Clarke, Barry Mac, Carney & Wells. Why was is not seen by the Sky producers whilst showing numerous replays and why was it not seen by thousands of unblinkered fans who post on these boards and love a bit of faux outrage whenever a Wigan player commits an offence. Clear as day my ****

I'm not sure, but he was charged with grade B, which carries a ban of 1-2 matches. So him submitting an early guilty plea avoids a possible extra game ban.

The full match is on YouTube, the tackle is around the 19 minute mark.

Strange, isn't it? He gets charged with shoulder contact to the head but if the incident had been a head clash he wouldn't have been charged.

Nothing to worry about here. He picked up an injury against Wire anyway. Shouldn't need him for Sunday.

Quote PurpleCheeseWarrior="PurpleCheeseWarrior"Have you actually watched the tackle again since the game? I have several times and the only part of Clubb's anatomy that comes into contact with Lineham's head, is his head. So are we really punishing big tackles and accidental head clashes now?'" Quote PurpleCheeseWarrior="goobervision"Given that there wasn't any outrage form Sky and there's nothing but what appears to be a good tackle why EGP? Frustrating that EGP was entered in this case from what's on the RFL site. www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/dis ... rch=search'" Quote PurpleCheeseWarrior="Trainman"That's called playing the system. It is very rare for a player to be charged and not get found guilty. Whether you agree with the charge or not the sensible option given the next game was to take the 1 match. The incident was replayed a number of times on TV and none of those showed any foul play. Someone has claimed a camera angle that showed otherwise, I'm sorry but I don't buy that, if there is another camera angle why did sky not use it.'" I'm a big Tony Clubb fan but as I already said, and you can now see from this picture, he has hit him straight in the head with his shoulder. It's poor technique rather than anything malicious I'm sure, just needs to bend his back next time.

Quote PurpleCheeseWarrior="PurpleCheeseWarrior"Have you actually watched the tackle again since the game? I have several times and the only part of Clubb's anatomy that comes into contact with Lineham's head, is his head. So are we really punishing big tackles and accidental head clashes now?'" Quote PurpleCheeseWarrior="goobervision"Given that there wasn't any outrage form Sky and there's nothing but what appears to be a good tackle why EGP? Frustrating that EGP was entered in this case from what's on the RFL site. www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/dis ... rch=search'" Quote PurpleCheeseWarrior="Trainman"That's called playing the system. It is very rare for a player to be charged and not get found guilty. Whether you agree with the charge or not the sensible option given the next game was to take the 1 match. The incident was replayed a number of times on TV and none of those showed any foul play. Someone has claimed a camera angle that showed otherwise, I'm sorry but I don't buy that, if there is another camera angle why did sky not use it.'" I'm a big Tony Clubb fan but as I already said, and you can now see from this picture, he has hit him straight in the head with his shoulder. It's poor technique rather than anything malicious I'm sure, just needs to bend his back next time.

Because the Sky commentary team are so well known for their expert analysis aren't they?

The fact that the disciplinary panel viewed it and saw it differently is conveniently ignored. The image already provided does show it clear as day.



Why is it strange? Head clashes are generally accidental as who in their right mind would purposefully try to tackle a man with his head?

Fair enough, I hadn't seen that angle. Still, is that really deserving of a ban? It's not like he's full on dived at him shoulder first and aimed for his head.

Rugby is a tough sport, but because of a few delicate flowers, who've probably never played the game, all aggression is seemingly frowned upon.