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.

I watched the replay earlier for the first time since Saturday and I’m still struggling to see what was too wrong with it. I’ve seen crusher tackles where players have been sat down and had pressure applied to the back of their head/neck but this was stood up and it looked slightly clumsy at worst. The Sky boys kick up a fuss, Powell spits his dummy as usual and an increased scrutiny is put on incident. In a non televised game he gets a lesser charge IMO. In fairness Smithies has had a big ban coming with his discipline since lockdown and hopefully it’ll be a wake up call for him.

The crusher tackle almost seems inevitable when an opposing player turns his back and still tries to make yards while the defender obviously tries to push him back. Refs should be calling held IMO when an attacker turns his back.

Isn't it the tackle that paralysed the Newcastle player?

The Alex McKinnon tackle was one where he was tipped on to his head/neck. That was a shocker in fairness and the sort of tackle that needed huge attention. The Ferres tackle on Gildart is what I consider a crusher tackle when I hear people mention them. The one by Smithies on Saturday wasn’t in the same league IMO but with the head butting charge tagged on, he walks away with the same ban.

It's set the bar now though. You'd be disappointed with anything less than 4 games for anybody who subsequently gets called up for a crusher tackle of any nature.

Absolutely. It’s a great point because to me it was on the lower end of the scale when it comes to judging on a crusher tackle. The Ferres one should be 10 games if that’s 4. Let’s see how they go!