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

Watch it again, Clare doesn't back in, he is spun round by Havard and Smithies.

I'm trying to stay out of this as I agree it should be a ban, I just think so a touch harsh given what's gone before but as I said earlier que sera
Anyway, Clare dips his head into the chest of Smithies after the initial contact, which leaves Smithies in a difficult position being over the top of him, what he did from there wasnt great and as havard etc are turning him he needs to release somehow and certainly not lose his feet so he has little control.

see the problem here is, its not a crusher tackle, in the known sense, its not one of these where the attacker has turned his back and dropped to the floor and the defender (on his back) comes down on top and forces the neck forwards as they come to the floor.

i have a degree of sympathy with smithies here as its one of those combined effort situations, like you see with tip tackles, one person picking a leg up is ok, 2 people doing it at the same time not realising the first person is doing it, is where it goes out of control, and then you ask, who's actually to blame?

smithies holding on, whilst the body is turned by others is turned is what causes the injury.

That being said, i cringed the moment i saw clare with his head down and smithies had the double underhooks, i used to do BJJ and thats a scary ing position to be in, in terms of body control, even one on one

Like I said I didnt say Clare per say I said attackers

I agree, and one person gets the suspension on the back of what 3/4 other players (Including the attacker) have done.
End of the day he needs to do better, but it is a strange one where someone takes the full punishment when others actions have contributed