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!

People must be watching a different tackle to me. I'm a big fan of Smithies but what did he think was going to happen when he gripped Claire under the arm with his head trapped into his body? I'm not saying it was intentional but definitely reckless from a full time professional. They know they need to make room for the head and that one isn't exactly split second, he has time to get it right but doesn't.

Clare doesn't back into the tackle either. Havard picks one of his legs up which allows him and Smithies to spins Clare round. They teach this to slow the ruck as the attacker will need to spend time turning back round to play the ball when he gets up.

Am I right in thinking you were/are a ref pal? In fairness you’re clearly going to be in a great position to judge. I’m looking on very much as a fan and just see a tackle, the sort of tackle that has been going on for donkeys years and people didn’t bat an eyelid but the games been trying to make it safer to participate for years and I’m obviously missing the real technicalities of what Smithies has done wrong. I’ll stick by the comment that if that warrants 4 games, then one similar to what Ferres did on Gildart should get 10 games going forward. That looked far far worse to the untrained eye.

Oh for sure Ferrers was worse, and he's a more experienced player as well who definitely should have known better. It won't have helped Smithies that he escaped with a bin on the day. Hopefully he learns from it, I like forwards playing aggressive but hate these kind of tackles.

Anyone noticed ZH seems to be on the warpath with regards to this topic, on twitter?
What’s he doing at all? Just asking for trouble arguing for with other clubs fans.

I think the "Backing in" statement refers to the first one with Bullock
It's a common issue, I reckon a large % of crushers are after a player has backed in to the tackle.

As for Smithies, I do think it warranted a ban, and it was worse on 2nd watch, seennworse get less but que sera as they say

Agreed. As with Gale last week, his demeanor during the game didn't help his case. You don't want to be getting a reputation with the refs at this early stage in a career.

yep

he has to carry some of the blame yes, you put yourself in a dangerous position and accidents can happen, didnt say Clare per say neither I said "attackers" so meaning all who do it

the duty of care lies with the referee the onus is on the defender