I mean I'm fine with the penalty, but most tackles are "inches away from potential serious injury" it's the nature of the sport. The fact is, it wasn't (and injury shouldn't be a determining factor in the size of a punishment anyway), and the tackle was, at worst, overzealous and not much else. No arms between the legs, marginally over the horizontal, no follow through, and landed on his shoulders. Sin bin sufficient.
Listening to Ray French with the telly sound turned down as usual to avoid the meaningless drivel spouted by these absoluet clowns, French's immediate comment on the Walsh tackle was " Nothing wring with that at all, I cannot understand why he has been penalised, in my day that was a good tackle"
Once again trial by Sky. Carney's outburst reminded me of a Hitler Rant, yet another Sky employee who actually believes that someone actually gives a sh1t about what he thinks and says.
I don't see it. He's got under the ball and wins the tackle. When he realised what he was doing he let go, in the heat of a game it's difficult to do a lot else. If anything it's almost too good a tackle but a little common sense has to be shown IMO. Penalty, fine. Yellow card, bit harsh IMO. Would be very disappointed if he's given a ban for that considering what we see going unpunished. You're talking very fine margins there, very difficult for him.
Have to say, I can't stand James Child. He's your typical referee who has never played the game but has that arrogance and smugness about him. The way he speaks to players is downright rude.
Steve Prescott MBE (1973-2013)
V
Walsh doesn't have to cop a ban. It's very debatable if that was even a penalty. Walsh got under the ball, but he didn't turn Albert or attempt to drive him, he just let go. It was dealt with on the field as well, the ref and video ref didn't see it as a red card offense, so why would the disciplinary committee have to? I'd be shocked if that gets a ban.
Thompson's was harder to judge. The ball carrier led with the elbow and Thompson's right arm was up, it certainly wasn't a textbook shoulder charge. It only became an incident because of the injury he suffered, which was very little to do with Thompson's tackling technique and more to do with his legs being trapped in the tackle. That could be a ban, one of the angles looked like a shoulder charge, but certainly no contact with the head. Other angles looked innocuous.
James Child is a complete pr1ck and brings the game into disrepute every time he takes to the field
I have no idea how someone as incompetent as him ever got a job but he must have friends in the right places
Nearly every single game he "takes charge" of ends up as an angry niggle-fest as he doesn't know how to manage the players. Some might say "well they should manage themselves" which is true but when you have some condescending, rude and arrogant buffoon speaking down to you it's no wonder they get riled
A Widnes fan asked on Sky last night if Walsh will be given the same length ban as Ah Van - which was 4 I think. How does it compare?? Thoughts please.
There is literally no comparison. Ah van had arms between the legs, drives down and drives through with the player on his neck/ head. The comparison can only be made because of the ridiculous hyperbole the sky team went into because they wanted Catalan to win. The ah van tackle is in the article below
http://www.skysports.com/rugby-leagu...five-match-ban
Totally agree. Ah Van lifted and drove the player into the ipitch. Some people can't even try to pass comments which are impartial. You wonder if they watch the game on a regular basis rather than occasional televised games. Carney wants Walsh hung drawn and quartered!
You always know when SS has lost the argument, she resorts to petty insults rather than constructing a rational counter-viewpoint.
I quit taking you on months ago. Around the time you started your passive aggressive crap quoting philosophy at me. You simply don't like the fact I'm capable of giving it back. Go and try to bully somebody else. All you'll get back from me every time is a picture of a turnip. It sums you up.
Last edited by SS; 13th August 2016 at 17:27.
I think you're becoming self-delusional, Baldrick.
To return to the matter at hand, Walsh clearly lifted the opponent's legs so they were above his trunk and was thus deserving of being penalised; what needs to be determined by people more cognisant of the laws than yourself is the extent of additional punishment, if any.
I've watched it again a couple of times and this perfectly sums it up for me. Cummings seems to be carrying the anti-saints baton this year and his comments were unnecessary . Even Clarke's immediate reaction was penalty sufficient. I really hope they dump the ex-ref for next year. He just winds viewers up with his stupid comments. I can't believe anyone watching is remotely interested in anything he has to say.
Yes a very valid point regarding squad depth. I recall discussing Widnes who had an excellent start to the season but you only had to see their forward cover to realise they would seriously come unstuck with a few injuries. Saint's have been very fortunate to have an excellent crop of local talent coming through the ranks particularly forward cover. I think where Saint's have not fully achieved their potential is that some poorly judged recruitment has not really added to the squad.
Sorry, you're right he did say yellow.
Equally some are calling for a ban by comparing it to tackles that were far worse, like Ah Van's. The tackler does have a responsibility though and I think you are right, the deterrent will be a factor and see him banned. Hopefully just 1 game, given his previous record etc and like you say we'll just have to suck up losing him for next week and hope we manage okay without him.
Yellow card sufficient for me, dealt with on the pitch so no reason to take it further. Don't think it was as bad as some of the bleeding hearts on here are trying to make out.