Loyal and true, not a glory hunter.
I suppose what should be done is that the RFL should look at the amount of HIAs a player has, and even if they pass all of them they need to be stood down for a few games. At the moment the science is incomplete and many small knocks could build up (the same as heading a ball in football).
If this was done then it would stop the cheating of the HIA rule.
Chris Hill has passed more tests than a driving examiner. I can't recall him being unable to return to play......clearly a tactic and a very disingenuous one given the player welfare issues in the game.
Learned comment from The Don
Hill is a cheat. End of story. I think there was one in the cup final where he went off without any contact to the head in the replay, and I mean ANY. . Always happens to be when he's due to come off anyway. Seems to be accepted throughout the club as fair game People trying to defend that or explain it away are being ridiculous. Funny how 4 or 5 'injuries' the other night just happened to be when we were due to start a new set in their half, not when Wire were attacking or anywhere else on the pitch
The difference between a ball carrier and a tackler is fairly clear if you think about it.
A ball carrier is running straight and the tackler has a number of options as to how they deal with it. They can run away, tackle high, tackle midriff or tackle low, they can stand there and shoulder charge.
Now if they chose to tackle high then they are putting themselves in a position where they could get bumped off by either arm or just by force. But in RL this is the preferred tackling style.
If they chose to tackle low or midriff then if their technique is good they will simply bring the player down to ground.
If you see a player with a reputation of running in hard and you have to tackle them them make the tackle low - they are so concerned with trying to bump you off that they will go down like a sack of spuds.
If however you chose to fight fire with fire and brace and shoulder charge them they in turn they have no option to change their run and it is the tackler who then puts the runner in a dangerous position. So in all tackles it is the tackler who will, by their decision, put either player in a dangerous situation.
I don't know about you but I would rather tackle the player in a manner that neither puts myself in danger or gives a penalty away. Use their momentum to achieve the tackle don't try and stand up to them in that specific situation - there is no need
If they chose to
The main thing in RL at the moment seems to be "winning the collision" which seems to be standing the player up, getting 2 or three tacklers round him and them bringing the player to ground in a controlled way to slow down the play the ball and set the defence. The ref will shout "dominant" and buy the defence more time. I wish they'd get rid of this rule and award quicker play the balls. I think this would also reduce head injuries as it might encourage players to tackle in a safer way lower down the body
The problem with that line of thought is that if you tackle low you invariably concede a quick play the ball. Given how much emphasis is placed on the ruck in the modern game you can't just freely grant that advantage to big players.
I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I don't think it's fair that a defender can't shoulder charge but an attacker can. It's clearly not safe, either, as I think I can remember Akuala knocking out three different defenders in the same way off the top of my head. I don't entirely buy the self-preservation argument, either: a ball carrier can brace for impact by bringing the arms up into protective position, or by using a fend; there's no need to turn side on and lead with the shoulder.
However, with things like this it's always a slippery slope. One thing gets outlawed and then soon enough people start pointing to something that looks a bit like it and asking why that hasn't been outlawed as well. Then you blink and all of a sudden it's a completely different game.
You are both right, the tackle will take a player to ground faster than a controlled upright tackle - but with a collision of the force that we are discussing how controlled will the tackle be? its really a decision as to what you are hoping and willing to do. Its about organisation and working out on the fly what technique is required.
Personally if you stop a player running at a tackler as hard and as fast as they can - why are we even watching a collision sport - these only do tend to happen when a player has a run up from a kick return - and fair play to him he is putting his body on the line also.
I don’t recognise what you describe as a dominant tackle. I’ve only heard the call when there’s been a fairly low, high impact, classical tackle where the attacking player doesn’t know what’s hit him. The following is the technical description of a dominant tackle:
“A referee may call "Dominant!" as a player is tackled to indicate the dominance of the defender over the attacking player in possession during the contact between them at the tackle. A dominant tackle is judged to be when the defender makes contact and drives the attacker back in one movement.”
Two or three players controlling the tackle and holding up or completing the tackle when defenders are back may be effective but isn’t dominant. All this dominant tackle business isn’t in the rules (I think it’s something the authorities have dreamed up without a rule change) and I agree with you that it would be better to ensure a quick PTB once a tackle is complete or “held” called.
The debate about tackles also overlooks that, from a percentage point of view, a fairly low on the torso tackle often dislodges the ball and results in a knock on.
I thought he was talking about the surrender tackle - and that's a rule I want to see eradicated from the game.
Attackers should be able to put doubts in the minds of defenders by having the option of dropping to the floor upon impact and getting a quick PTB. Wouldn't work all the time, and indeed even when it was allowed, it still only happened a handful of times in a game, but right now defenders have way too easy a job.
This is just silly. Hill is having a good season, hardly a plodder. Cooper is doing even better and Mulhearn is coming along nicely. Philbin not quite as effective as last season but not doing too badly thank you. As a unit our props are at least a match for yours. Amor, LMS no thanks.
"The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is nothing of the kind. The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom." Danny Blanchflower.
Might have been written by a footballer about football - but never a truer word............
I quick search and I've not found a specific RFL/SL rule either (although there is a specific rule in the NRL)
What I did see were a few Bratfud whines, going back years, about a certain 'voluntary tackle' that wasn't a voluntary tackle.
I don't think some of their fans will ever get over it
Hill was a good prop 4-6 years ago. I have thought him a donkey the past 2-3 years. He did have a good game against us and has been better this year, but how much of that is due to the extra time he gets off the field with his fake HIA's?
I wasn't comparing front rows, just the fact that Hill was mentioned as your best FR and I was comparing him to Walmsley. Walmsley can go quicker than a fast walk. I agree Cooper is good, and Mulhearn has a lot of potential. Being from St Helens I grew up hating Wigan, but wanting Warrington to fall flat on their face is something you have to learn. Recently that has been an easy tutorial between the gamesmanship, cheating and tacky PR stunts.
In the last 7 or 8 years where Saints have won 3 LLS and 3 GF’ against Wire’s superior winning culture?
I’ve not heard anyone really bad-mouth Warrington until Price took over and started with a particular type of gamesmanship evident to all.
Sport is cyclical, always has been and always will be and it’s not that long ago we lost all those GF’s
Wire have the beating of any team on a good day and maybe it’s your year? But if you are saying that they aren’t using the injury stoppages in a deceitful way I feel you are being disingenuous.
Ultimately the only game you’ve won against Saints that had real meaning was the CC Final, at which a poor refereeing decision DID have a bearing upon (unfortunately, it will always be brought up because of how poor it was and ultimately may not have altered the result)
Fwiw there’s been a couple of Semi final wins against us too, but Wire have them gone on to lose the final.
There’s an odd record if you look back at any of the teams who beat Saints in the play off semi, they rarely win the GF. In recent memory, only Leeds in 2015 have beet Saints in the Semi then won?
Can't stop the spirits when they need you.
This life is more than just a read through.
Does anyone think Hicks showed himself to be totally inept again tonight. Unless I saw it wrong the ball came loose in a Wigan attack, appeared to be going to ground but was kicked by Ratchford, hitting Mamo who was stood in front of him. Hicks waves play on and Warrington go down the other end and score in the same set. Only watched it the once so may have got the process wrong. Then later a kick goes up, Curry chases and without even looking at the ball collides with Bibby, play continues and Hicks awards the try, but sends it upstairs James ( I want to see everything 20 times on every view) Child as video ref looks at it twice and rules it out, something obvious even without the replay. Does Hicks even watch the game. Something else I found hilarious was J Clarke goes down injured with Wigan near the line. Then when the physio comes on can't even make his mind up which arm/shoulder he's hurt.
Loyal and true, not a glory hunter.
Absolutely loving this thread. No wonder you all hide in this echo chamber. The quality of 'opinion' is laughable. Carry on.