I thought the technique was perfect, not late, not a shoulder not high.. If you hit someone that had in the chin/head they are going to be spark out, he wasn't so it proves he hit him in the chest. I'd be staggered if he even got a 1 match ban for it. Seems he got sent off for a tackle that could have been bad, but wasn't..

So if a player uses his shoulder to the head of an opponent it would “smash his face in “.

And I am “struggling with my comprehension “..

Explain struggling with my comprehension ....you are making a fool of yourself .

Not had the chance to re watch the game yet.Probably won't tbh.If it had been Carney on Kelly doing same you lot would have been howling for red. I didn't notice anything out of ordinary from Stand and agree Kendall wasn't going to penalise the tackle. Just one of those things and if it had cost you the game I could understand the bleating.

]

Weird post. Part of been a fan is screaming red, doesn’t invalidate the debate afterwards.

He went for the hit and got it wrong. I was apoplectic at the time that he got sent off but he did contact the head. The only thing I disagree with is looking at it a dozen times in slow motion. The game isn't played in slow motion.

Explain struggling with comprehension? The fact I'm having to explain it is proof you're struggling with it!

When you keep needing to ask questions about what things mean, it shows a lack of comprehension.

Let me fill in the blanks that so so conveniently left out of your first line: if a player, in a "clear attempt to injure" (your words), was to use a shoulder in the tackle and aim for the head in that situation, it would indeed smash his face in.

Which part are you struggling with? Tell me what you think it means and I'll help you.