Looked worse than it was, but it highlights the danger in "bad tackles".

It was an accidental clash and not even a penalty IMO. If he penalises the player for leading with the head surely he has to be binned/sent off? Seemed a half hearted decision last night

If Amor hadn't been knocked out i doubt it would've been a penalty.

You're probably right...because if Amor hadnt of been knocked out you could argue that he wouldnt have dropped the ball and play would have continued.

Some times these things happen and for the most its no malice intended when they do lets face it they aint playing tiddlewinks.

I didn't think any malice just poor technique but should be punished same as should any bad tackle resulting in injury. I am confident that he will be banned like Moa was for FC last year for same thing. The panel said even though MOA didn't mean to his tackle was poor and banned him appropriately. If banned then a card was also warranted at the time.

On the subject of dodgy tackle technique...

After watching SL Fulltime last night, it looks like Chase could be in bother again; another dubious tackle, this time on Hardaker, that left the lad out cold. Hard to see exactly what happened, but it definitely had shades of Tangi Ropati all over again.

Also after watching SL full time, I noticed that lincoln withers' need for stitches came from a the studs of Justin Poore...am I too cynical to think that the RFL will attempt to justify that poore 'stamped' on withers and subsequently reprimand him?

Looked to me as though Poore was trying to [i]avoid [i] standing on Withers head, but was unable to as both were involved in what the Union boys may describe as a 'rolling maul' and his leading foot just came down where Withers head happened to be at that moment in time.

I also can't believe how generous you guys are re 'leading with the head'. If he means it - and he did seem to lunge - then it's assault (as well as a straight 'Red'). If not, and he hasn't braced himself, he risks a serious neck injury (to himself). I also think Ganson got it right. He awarded a penalty for a dangerous tackle (accidental or otherwise), said he wasn't saying anything was deliberate and put the incident on 'report' for a panel to look at over tea and hob-nobs. As he said to Dobson (who was a bit vociferous all night - especially to a disciplinarian like Ganson) '...I could deal with this very differently', which I presume to mean flash a Red in addition to anything else.

I'd agree with that - for anyone to suggest that was intentional would be ridiculous.

Farcical decision to award Trinity a penalty, great hit and an accidental clash of heads,we were not very good on Saturday but at that stage of the game we were getting on top and would of had the ball 10 metres from your line, instead penalty to you and momentum lost.

What you talking about, we'd just scored to make it 24-10 and you kicked off and Amor was taking first hit up, on what planet would you have had the ball 10 meters from our line. If it wasn't a penalty and played on it would be second tackle on our 20 meter line.

Fact is it was a dangerous tackle, yes it was accidental but that doesn't stop it being dangerous, he made contact with his head and the ref correctly as they do in cases like this give penalties.

Amor dropped the ball so if no penalty it would have been Hull Kr ball.
Personally think the penalty decision was a good one but no further action as no malice/intent. To say it was "farcical" is a little over the top, a bit like Michael Dobson.

I didn't think there was any intention to hit with the head but as said, it would have been a penalty if he hadn't intended to hit with the arm but accidentally caught him.
I wouldn't expect a big ban or anything. I'd give that SOS.

You silly sausage.