Possibly the usual moaning by the Castleford coach may have set the stall out for the disciplinary committee to make their decision about the 'D' charge.

Yet again Wigan had more citing's than the opposition, five to two with the two by Cas being the same player.

Anyone would think that Cas and other teams are a bunch of angels and Wigan, a bunch of thugs.

Smithies seems to have gone like he has in recent games since he lost his starting position to Havard.

He needs to calm down or else he will become a target for the disciplinary committee like certain other players.

Is it? I wonder which one Watts and Clare think is more dangerous.

Probably Watts, the tackle wasnt intended and the grab was, attackers need to stop running in with their head down and especially turning their back and trying to make metres as thats what causes most crushers

The guy who played on - not the guy who took a long time to be stretchered off with a neck/back injury?

6-game ban just reported on twitter by Phil Wilkinson.

Oh, so it was Clare's fault. I'm sure the disciplinary panel will throw this case out on that basis.

Where did he say that?

There are very few intentional crusher tackles, the one that springs to mind was Ferres on Gildart.

Crusher tackles tend to occur when the attacker starts backing into the defenders so it is fair to say the attacker contributes towards getting themselves into that position. That said, it is the defenders responsibility to ensure they don’t apply downward force into the head/neck and need to adjust their technique or learn when to pull out of a tackle if the attacker has ended up in that position.

This awareness and judgment from the defenders point of view will take time and training. I haven’t a problem with the ban for Smithies and am glad Clare has escaped with just a strain. What frustrates me is I’ve seen 6 or 7 of these over the past few weeks yet only 1 has got a grade D charge.

Where did he say it - the words that are highlighted in red are clearly laying the blame with Clare. The duty of care lies with the defender. Agree with the inconsistency of panel decisions and the similar instances even having no case to answer. This is not confined to just crusher tackles, either.

The worst exponent of that tactic is Philbin off Warrington i would have no sympathies whatsoever for him if he gets a crusher tackle done on him

wow

Crushers are horrible tackles, but some can occur accidentally (I’m not defending Smithies) but some are very dangerous, ferres on Gildart springs to mind, but the duty of care is on both parties.

Easiest solution is when a player starts to back into a tackle, call it a surrender, defence gets an extra couple of seconds to reset and the player is tackled stood up. But there has to be some onus on the ball carrier.

All through the 70s, 80s & 90s I never heard the name “crusher tackle” nor do I remember anyone getting hurt as a result of one. The game is going soft.