To clear all this up what the RFL should do is to appoint someone to do a six sigma analysis on which teams and which players cause most injuries to their opponents and which type of tackles are responsible.

This would take all the emotion out of these threads and come up with fact rather than some of the unreasoned rants that appear from some quarters.

So held as in not being tackled then - well done.

And before I'd start quoting what the RFL has said as some kind of evidence, I'd go and look at the difference between being charged with something and being found guilty. HTH.

I'm sure Mr Lima's tackling technique will be commented on and judged in the fullness of time, but tell me Andy, which part of [iforcefully makes contact with the leg of an attacking player who has been held in the tackle, in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player Grade are you having difficulty with?

If it helps, the clue is in the words "unacceptable risk"

It also helps if the idiot in the middle utters the word "held", which he did not.

The fact that he has been charged is just a technicality, a mistake by the referee if you will.

HTH

Billy the point isn't with whether it was bad or by it's the fact that other players did the same and haven't been charged. A good record should mean lenient ban not no charge whatsoever. Also the fact he starts at the thigh is ignored. Lima has been targeted before simply look back to a few weeks back and see my post about radford vs Lima radford had a charge sheet that copied limas almost word for word yet radford was let off without a ban and Lima got two matches Lima got 1 per challenge yet radford didn't get 1 for the one he did. Therefore every other player that did what Lima did this week should have at least been charged and they haven't. Btw cross did it to a wigan player about 5 minutes after Lima did it so how a Leeds fan can take the highground when he same player does what happened to him so soon after is frankly ridiculous.

And that's why we need to do this.

No surprises that you don't understand the difference between being charged with something and being found guilty.

Bless.

[iBillyRhino wrote

I think the first 17 words would indicate that I am well aware of the differences between charged and guilty, but that was not what you were asked.

So, once again Andy.....which part of forcefully makes contact with the leg of an attacking player who has been held in the tackle, in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player, are you having difficulty with?

If you claim to realise the difference then why use a CHARGE as evidence?

We all know that everyone who has every been charged with something is subsequently found guilty don't we?

Now which bit of that do you find so difficult to understand?

i maintain my point.........if 2 guys are tackling a player round the body, a 3rd SHOULD come in and take the legs.
they teach u7s that.

ref hadnt called "held"......so what Lima did was perfectly legal.

works other way round too...if 2 players are tackling with 1 round the legs, and one round the waist, i would expect a 3rd to jump in and clamp the ball carrying arms to stop the offload?...or will we get charged next time we do that as well??

The bit where you attempt to link charge to evidence. Serious question Andy, is English your native language?

The reason I ask is a Charge is a formal accusation.

Evidence will be data presented to the RFL as proof of the facts in issue....testimonies from the Ref and linesmen...Video, with all the different camera angles etc.

That's Evidence, and upon which the RFL will base its judgement.

The Charge, which is something completely different, is what he will have to answer too.

So, for the 3rd time of asking....which part of the charge are you still struggling to comprehend?

You get the same clue as Andy....."unacceptable risk"

Let's see if the penny drops and who can work out why he was charged.....note CHARGED...not convicted as yet. And wittering on about ifs and buts simply provides a distraction, and merely stumps the easily confused.

You're right it explains why you have nothing better to do