Yeah, because refs always judge things perfectly. The reaction of the Cas players shows you what they thought about the "tackle" from a front on view.

Anybody who has watched MM play knows that he is more than capable of deliberate malice, even Wigan fans if they are honest with themselves.

if you can McIlorum making contact with the head then you need to go and work in border control you will be worth a fortune as you must have X-ray vision.

yeah we might as well do away with the video ref if we are going of players reactions every try must be a try

Micky MaC is a tough intimidating player, he is also a very talented player. He crosses the line sometimes.

If you remove that aggressive streak in him you lose some of his effectiveness.

All aggressive players tend to be fans favorites at their own clubs and villains to opposition fans.

Skerrett, Nickle, Newton, Foggerty, Forber, Davidson, Tuuta, Ian Roberts, Paul Harrigan, etc etc etc

Despite the attempts to over sanitise the sport rugby is at a base level an aggressive contact sport and characters like those listed above and many more before and since will always thrive in that environment. It's the nature of the beast and when they do boil over they receive the adequate punishment. No need to go OTT on the issue.

I see Saints have made a good start to the season.....

Just to help you out here because you are obviously struggling a little to understand.

No-one is suggesting that he didn't hit his head.

The poster was referring to the ref's decision AT THE TIME. He couldn't very well diagnose a broken jaw on the spot now could he? He thought the first contact was shoulder, Therefore he gave MMc the benefit of the doubt and just gave a penalty. Now, we know that was an error and that in fact he probably should have got sent off - just as most people on here have admitted.

Your rather pathetic attempts to stir the **** do you no credit. This as 'jonh' has eloquently stated above is a non issue (apart from for Kirk Dixon of course). Move along.

Quote: Aboveusonlypie "Just to help you out here because you are obviously struggling a little to understand. No-one is suggesting that he didn't hit his head. The poster was referring to the ref's decision AT THE TIME. He couldn't very well diagnose a broken jaw on the spot now could he? He thought the first contact was shoulder, Therefore he gave MMc the benefit of the doubt and just gave a penalty. Now, we know that was an error and that in fact he probably should have got sent off - just as most people on here have admitted. Your rather pathetic attempts to stir the **** do you no credit. This as 'jonh' has eloquently stated above is a non issue (apart from for Kirk Dixon of course). Move along.'" Exactly, I still think he hits the shoulder first as Dixon falls into the tackle. However, it was still reckless and he deserves what he got AND it's perfectly in line with the guidelines. It was reckless rather than intentional and that's why it was graded as such media.therfl.co.uk/docs/On%20Fie ... -Final.pdf Section 2.5 (15.1b)

Quote: Aboveusonlypie "Just to help you out here because you are obviously struggling a little to understand. No-one is suggesting that he didn't hit his head. The poster was referring to the ref's decision AT THE TIME. He couldn't very well diagnose a broken jaw on the spot now could he? He thought the first contact was shoulder, Therefore he gave MMc the benefit of the doubt and just gave a penalty. Now, we know that was an error and that in fact he probably should have got sent off - just as most people on here have admitted. Your rather pathetic attempts to stir the **** do you no credit. This as 'jonh' has eloquently stated above is a non issue (apart from for Kirk Dixon of course). Move along.'" Exactly, I still think he hits the shoulder first as Dixon falls into the tackle. However, it was still reckless and he deserves what he got AND it's perfectly in line with the guidelines. It was reckless rather than intentional and that's why it was graded as such media.therfl.co.uk/docs/On%20Fie ... -Final.pdf Section 2.5 (15.1b)

I replied to a quote referencing the video footage, but thanks anyway.

\]

Not over exaggerating at all? he tackled a player high by the outcome clearly but if he hadn't hurt dixon like the other countless high tackles i doubt anything would of come from this.

I do think McIlorum needs to change his technique because he does whack players with his arms a lot i think he needs to learn to do it with the should and he shouldn't be caught tackling a player high as much.

Wigan fans defending their own whilst opposition fans call for his head shocker.

Much like anything in life, the actual incident is up for interpretation. And there is enough evidence [or lack thereof] to fit anybodies agenda. If you think McIllorum is a thug, then he deliberately went in to hurt Dixon. If you're a Wigan fan you can see the play falls into the tackle, and therefor was hit high.

Go back through all my posts on this sort of incident, and I'll always say let the review panel sort it out. You see I don't believe they are prejudiced, be it for or against any club.

I'm just happy that MM was not injured when he was fallen on!!!

Get well soon Mr Dixon....