So we're saying you can swing your elbow/forearm into someone's face when carrying the ball, provided you glance the chest first?

Remember, a high shot is judge on point of impact not point of completion.

Frankly, that is rollocks. Otherwise we'll see ball carriers leading with a swinging forearm that bounces off chests into faces.

But I think you know that already, it's just not convenient to agree.

HIGH SHOT! Not a ball carrier.

a HIGH SHOT! Meaning a HIGH TACKLE. Meaning when Graham (constantly) swings his arm and hits someone in the chest and it moves up to the neck you think that should be penalised?

What exactly does that have to do with what Joel Tomkins did?

Well if you read the posts previous we are talking about how joel hits the chest then it rises to the face and I was pointin out how a High Shot is judged by point of impact and that this same thinking may apply to what Joel did and that would mean that he does not get the same sanction as he will have hit chest then rose to face.


Easier to understand the relevance now?

i hope is does appeal and get his ban reduced , other players do it , so why not Joel

No, because Joel hasn't been banned for a high tackle.

And I see you ignored my point that contact with the chest alone does not make every tackle (or ball carry) legal.

I didnt ignore that I pointed out about what Graham does and he DOESNT get penalised so your point was redundant.

And the relevance is simple. If he was tackling someone and he got their chest then as the player went down the grip moved to the head the tackle would be judged as far and in this he clearly hits his chest. He intends to hurt him yes but he hits the chest first and moves up with the momentum of the move and the other players dropping down.

Didn't Carvell get a ban for leading with the elbow turned over on appeal last season? Don't remember the incident but it's the same offence that Joel has been pinged for. Personally I think two matches was about right considering the dust up beforehand too. I don't think it was malicious but his aggression in the carry made it dangerous

well obviously

(joke)

what I ment was that if he had been sent off in say 1st 10 minutes he would've lost almost 1 game already and therefore all points towards appeal.

Also I though a gread B was only punishable to a maximum of 2?????
I understand me in my world

If this incident can only be justified by looking at it under such close scrutiny then you shouldn't be able to justify the culprits actions. Are you really trying to justify what Tomkins did by saying for a split second upon contact the elbow never hit, yet a fraction of a second later it is fully justifiable? The fact is upon for first viewing it is clear what he is trying to do, and looking at the sitation frame by frame picking out the ones where contact with the elbow is not visible is like shooting someone and claiming the seconds between the bullet leaving the gun and hitting the victim were out of your control therefore you shouldn't be blamed.