That was absolutely shambolic from Saints, I honestly cannot remember a worse performance from them. Irrespective of how well or not they are coached the players should hold their heads in shame as their effort was totally unacceptable.

It was fun to watch though

No way was that a deliberate head shot. He wrapped his arms round the guy's body. The fact his feet left the ground is laughably irrelevant. How many tacklers leave the ground when they're trying to bring down an opponent? Probably fifty per cent of them. It signifies nothing other than determined effort.

We have to ask ourselves where all this is going to end. They've pulled back on next year's extra level of 'player protection' because they've realised it would make the game unplayable. But for how long?

Many, many years ago, before all this was a conversation piece, I took my son to hospital after a Saturday afternoon match, because he'd sustained a nasty ankle injury. The Casualty doctor was quite sniffy with us, as if we'd got what we deserved, and in the end, couldn't resist saying: 'If I had my way, rugby would be abolished tomorrow.'

That's the mentality behind all this. We shouldn't just be okay with it.

Some of Saints senior players need to have a look in the mirror, those young lads were hung out to dry yesterday.

Hull KR were outstanding, their biggest issue is that GF isn’t next week, as I don’t think anyone is beating them currently on this form. 7 weeks is a long time in sport, for everyone (including Saints!) to build for Old Trafford.

[delINOUT[/del

Correct

The rugby barometer will tell us how good they are in a fortnight when they come to Wigan.

Let's not start pretending that whether or not a player's feet leave the ground is now some kind of criterion for a red card. Please, let's nip this imaginary problem in the bud before it becomes another millstone round the game's neck.

I you are out of control both feet off the floor and make direct contact with the head when the opponent hasn’t lowered his head or dropped height at speed it has to be red.

As far as I know any reckless contact with the head has always been red, difference in this case from others was perhaps the intention to do damage….which I don’t think there was in this case.

I do though think the tackle was made out of pure frustration and if Saints are not getting pumped I don’t personally think TM performs the tackle in the same way.

It is if he's bolt upright and makes direct contact with the head as it means there's no attempt to keep the tackle low! I can only imagine you're being deliberately obtuse if you can't see a player jumping into a tackle is more likely to lead to a high tackle. Or do you think a defender who lowers his tackle height by bending his back is equally likely to hit the attacker high?

Come on mate, use a bit of sense. I understand you don't like the rule but trying to argue that an upright player with both feet off the ground isn't higher than an upright player with both feet on the ground is bordering on the delusional.

There's nothing delusional in being worried about the way the game is going.

If you're absolutely 100% okay that any contact with the head should be classifiable as a head-shot and merit some kind of card, then fine. I personally think it'll ruin the game I grew up loving (in fact, I think it already is - fans pay good money to watch stars on the pitch, not sitting in the stand, suffering draconian punishments for 'offences' which in a contact sport are commonplace and often accidental). But each to their own. At least you're in synch with the current powers-that-be.

No doubt you'll want the final word. Fine. have it. I've said what I think and am done with it.

Woah! This is a completely different discussion to "it was never a red card" or whether being off the ground makes a high shot more likely. Whether you like the fact that it is a red card or not is irrelevant. I said previously that I understand that you don't. I can't say I'm keen myself but understand the thinking behind the new rules (if not always the interpretation).

Just to clarify my posts. You said it was never a red card. I said it was. That's the entirety of the debate as far as I'm concerned. If you want to discuss whether the rules are good for the game, necessary or anything else I'm more than happy to chat about that too but that's nothing to do with my posts on the subject to date.

As it stands by the rules it was a red and Tommy prob will get a 2 match ban to clarify it.
We may not like the way the game is going sometimes but these are the rules at the min.