Don't understand how contact with the head is fine when you have the ball but unacceptable when you don't.

Not complaining about the Grand Final or the picture in question (hastings tackle on fages was fine though

) just think that's a reasonable inconsistency to point out

If you lead with the forearm or elbow, dependant on where the contact is it’s a straight red. That to me looks like a fend off where Bullock has moved to avoid and ended up hitting the forearm. Walmsley doesn’t do anything wrong there, play on.

I get what you’re saying but we’re never going to eradicate contact with the head. Removing the fend off removes the offensive players opportunity to do exactly that, fend off defenders to offload or find a gap to squeeze through. Not all props do that, the likes of Flower/Clubb are essentially bartering rams with minimal offloads who don’t need to fend off.

show me the clip of the above picture instead of a still taken and I may change my mind

and make minimal yards also, maybe they should fend

Non issue, hand off to the face is totally normal and happens in every game. Forearm/elbow is different; Liam Watts got sent off for doing that against Mickey Mac a few years back.

Why would i have that evidence,maybe if you watched the game back again you might see it

I think the OP makes a valid point, but the photo is not the best illustration of it. I've long complained that the ball-carrier is given the benefit of the doubt far too much; elbows and forearms to the face are not uncommon (often with the ball-carrying arm, not the 'free' arm), moving off the mark, playing the ball any old how at any old angle, etc etc.

A fair deal for defenders!

Consider:

- the ball carrier is the one with 3 or so lumps of muscle all trying to hit him as hard as they can
- the ball carrier has the extra disadvantage of having a ball to catch, keep hold of, and possibly try to offload
- the ball carrier sometimes doesn't get chance to brace until the last second, as he can't necessarily track where all 13 defenders are whilst trying to catch a ball. The defenders always know where the ball carrier is so have more time to get their contact right.
- defenders make contact with the head in many tackles, not all of them are penalised (and rightly so) if the contact is incidental and not too big of an impact
- a penalty against the defence is a lot bigger than a penalty against the attack

I think it's absolutely right that we afford the ball carrier more protection. If we started making them run with their arms by their sides they would get mullered.

I think Woolf contributed to the penalty decision. This is exactly why he made the public statement regarding high tackles after the last game between us. It’s all mind games with referees

Nobody is saying that. All the things I described above happen, and often. They are contraventions of the laws of the game, and should be penalised.

I think there has to be a differentiation between a ball carrier 'getting his bumpers up' to protect himself and what we deem to be a penalty (or more!) for leading with the forearm or elbow. The former happens every game and is bound to lead to some element of contact with the head of the defender on occasion. Just like plenty of legitimate tackles involve a degree of contact with the head but are left alone. The game is played in shades of grey, not black and white. As long as we're getting the stand-outs (ie that McShane one last year) then it's alright. If you go the other way you either get a ton of penalties or the ball carriers start surrendering to avoid getting smashed into next week.

Some of the penalties now being given for a high tackle are anything but a high tackle!