: Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:59 pm  

Lord_Percy wrote:

Yet more proof that Bailey has a very impressive tackle.

Is that stereotyping of Black people? G1 will have you on that one

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:10 pm  

DISA wrote:

Thats the key here. It was not "that kind" of shoulder charge, it was the same as anyother one like it. Difference was Mary went in with the head down. Had he been upright it would not have touched his head.

By "that kind" I mean any tackle using the shoulder without the arms. Which it was. It is, in either event, currently legal to "tackle" in that way in RL (not in RU though). The "any other one like it" you would refer to, are also challenges I would like to see outlawed. However, that will divide opinion I am sure, and the fact remains that at present they are not illegal. Sonny Bill Williams is an excellent exponent of such "tackles". It can be fun to watch, but I think it's probably unduly dangerous to both parties and not the greatest technique. Mr Williams found himself spending time in the sin bin for such challenges in his first forays into RU.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:12 pm  

Clearwing wrote:

Give Fa'asavalu his due, he's about the only person connected with St Helens who hasn't complained about it.

Agreed, but if he'd been Marcus Bai he would have just got up and played the ball..

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:13 pm  

Dave Heron's Moustache wrote:

Agreed, but if he'd been Marcus Bai he would have just got up and played the ball..

Whilst knocked out? Is Bai superhuman?

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:16 pm  

RB wrote:

Whilst knocked out? Is Bai superhuman?

Yes.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:20 pm  

Clearwing wrote:

Give Fa'asavalu his due, he's about the only person connected with St Helens who hasn't complained about it.

I've said all along it's a fair shot.

I agree to some extent with Potter that if we're sayingshoulder to the head is legal we might have some issues, but in that particular circumstance, I think it was OK.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:23 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

I've said all along it's a fair shot.

I agree to some extent with Potter that if we're sayingshoulder to the head is legal we might have some issues, but in that particular circumstance, I think it was OK.

Credit where it's due, most of you guys have, and nobody here has moaned about getting beat. Which is why I can't understand where all the rest has come from the last few days.
Some serious issues that have little to do with Friday night being worked out on the Leeds board this week.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:29 pm  

expatrhino wrote:

Sorry to disagree with you but the rules of the game state.

" a player is guilty of misconduct when effecting or attempting a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent [b]intentionally, recklessly or carelessly."

I don't think any of those three apply. IMO

Fair enough holding that opinion.

The first point of contact on Fa'asavalu was above the shoulder who was more or less running at his normal height.

It was a high tackle IMO and worthy of a penalty, just as the challenge of Watmough on Burrow had been in the WCC.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:42 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Fair enough holding that opinion.

The first point of contact on Fa'asavalu was above the shoulder who was more or less running at his normal height.

It was a high tackle IMO and worthy of a penalty, just as the challenge of Watmough on Burrow had been in the WCC.

Fair enough we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:43 pm  

I fail to understand should Baily have crouched down to bring his shoulder in line with Mary's chest? when you consider that Bailey did not in fact tackle at all he just stood there and let Mary run into him. If Mary insists on head butting Baileys shoulder (which effectivly is what he did, look at the video Bailey did not move into the tackle) whats the problem.