Only thing i see is that Paea hits below the knee and flowers above the knee. That tackle is not allowed in the NRL now, although never saw anything about Super League.

Details of the appeal rlhererl.

Touch rugby anyone?

Having read the findings I would put it up alongside Shakespeare as a wonderful work of fiction. They really are clueless and the sooner some of these jumped up ex-players are shown the door, the better for all of us.

Speechless.

If you ignore all other cases and take it on this tackle only they've got it right.

Consistency is all we need.

I'm not sure I agree. I think the fact that the player is purposefully driving his legs forward should allow a defender to tackle that player around the legs to prevent the forward motion. If the attacker is being held stationary that would be a different matter.

I also disagree. It's a text book tackle that doesn't carry anymore danger than any other type of tackle. If its such a dangerous tackle why wasn't Flower charged when his tackle was deemed dangerous enough for a sin binning? I could easily go through all the games this weekend and find dozens of similar tackles that won't get charged. It's pathetic.

In fact I've just seen 2 worse "cannonball" tackles in the first 2 sets of the wigan vs wire game and no mention of them at all.

So in the Wigan v Warrington game Scott Taylor has gone in low as third man twice in the first minute. Let's see what happens about that. Oh it's Wigan therefore nothing.

Going to busy at Red Hall next week. Oh hang on wire v wigan forget that.

There'd be no problem with him wrapping up the legs. He does dive in a bit for a hit though, and it seems to be something they want to clamp down on. By itself, harsh but not ridiculous. Well not if he'd taken his EGP, but that's a different argument.
I agree with Sheldon - somebody else will do something similar (or worse) and it'll go unpunished. Spin, spin, spin the wheel of justice...

Spotted them too

As I say, it was harsh. But he goes off his feet and dives in. The bending down to hug legs is clearly what they're trying to encourage. player welfare is important and they are vulnerable in that situation. I think Paea is a bit unlucky to get done, when others won't. And 2 games certainly comes across as 'making an example'. It didn't look malicious.

Knowing what they're like, and that this is something they're focusing on, having been put on a charge the risk of 2 games probably outweighed the chance of a not guilty. An EGP (maybe with an appeal to [idowngrade[/i) would have been the politic manoeuvre. Wise with hindsight, perhaps.

What's been discussed isn't rugby league. I'm glad they're protecting the players but has to be some actual sense. A man has to be able to tackle a man still moving. For me he goes in at his back side when he 1st goes to tackle and ends low.
Seen a few in tonight's game
Both flower tackles are worse. Against the same opposition at the same ground! Only a week before! That's just bent!!!