Watch the tape on Sky. Hardaker clearly was NOT unconscious. He went down, he turned, he put his hand to his head. One key trademark of being knocked out is that as a result of the 'out' part your independent movement stops.... his doesn't. Ergo, not knocked out. Concussed maybe, but not unconscious, not knocked out.

After watching the replay over and over and also looking at the still showing the initially point of contact i would say that rangi has gone in for a text book shoulder charge, hardaker has fallen forward and they have clashed heads. A similar incident for con mika resulted in the ruling 'players goes to make legitimate tackle and accidently makes contact with head' 'no further action' the only reason i can see that panel has charged him for is that leeds have kicked up such a stink they feel they have to do something.

Some leeds fans smarting from defeat may disagree but there are certain things we can say for without doubt, chase did not go in with the elbow as hardaker and a number of leeds fans all over the internet have stated. chases feet have not left the floor as stated by o'connor and a number of leeds fans. Hardaker was not knocked out as stated by the leeds coach.

Chase has aimed his shoulder at the chest of hardaker and hardaker as fallen into the tackle, had hardaker remained upright as he was when chase committed no contact would have been made, and there is no way that chase can pull out in the split second before hardaker falls into the tackle.

The club should fight this and if the disciplinary committee is fair there should be no ban.

One thing that has come out of this is that players should be told not to comment until the rfl has passed judgement on incidents such as this, it unfairly prejudices the case before its been reviewed. If you are allowed to claim you have been elbowed in the face, players have been knocked out etc when there no truth in it whats to stop players making things up about every tackle hoping to get the tackler cited?

A rational and excellent post...

Extending the point, what are the chances of a disrepute charge being brought against an individual who has clearly been disingenuous, seemingly in order to fuel the flames of suspicion against a fellow professional?

In fairness though, Nick Fozzard has also been all over Twitter, trying to defend Chase - that could be perceived as trying to influence the disciplinary outcome in exactly the way that is being condemned on here.

Unfortunately, the instant nature of modern communication, coupled with the lack of brainpower that is sometimes involved, means that there'll be indiscretions of this nature more and more often; as I've discovered in my own business, trying to stop it is like tilting at windmills. The genie is out of the bottle, so to speak.

I suspect that if Chase does get a ban, his previous conduct will be an aggravating factor and not many people could argue with that.

You do talk some drivel. Anyone would think it was going up in-front of a public Jury for them to decide.

The guys got form for this so he's going to have to explain himself. For me the video evidence was inconclusive.

Which is exactly why the outcome should be NFA - Video inconclusive.

But this is the RFL.

Fozz is on twitter IN RESPONSE to what are clearly erroneous claims made by some members of the Leeds set-up. I think there's a big difference there... they've initially talked bull**** to try to damn a player and Fozz has said "Er, hang on a minute!".

I see no comparison between the two - At best Fozz is only trying to influence the outcome back towards some modicum of impartiality after the media have already stung Rangi up on the strength of McDermotts and Hardaker's lies.

Sounds pretty accurate to me. Also consider the perfect position the referee was in to judge the impact, which was far better than that provided by the camera angle.

In relation to point d, if in fact Chase's elbow did hit Hardaker's chin, I'm not sure if he'd know that, had he actually been knocked out. Chase's elbows must be in an unusual place on his body too...

What is for certain, as this thread amply demonstrates, is that throughout the season, fans of a club will vociferously defend their own player for a challenge that, if it was inflicted on said player by someone from another team, would see them take to the streets with pitchforks.

If you get some perspective on the situation, you'll realise that Chase is being called in to answer questions about a challenge that resulted in injury, using the same rules that apply to every other player; he hasn't been found guilty yet and despite the ridiculous anti-Cas conspiracy theories, or Gronk QC whipping up wrongheaded hysteria about prejudicial hearings, it's a reasonably robust system for handling disciplinary matters.

As for the jeering at Hardaker for being soft, that just shows a lack of class.

Zak iis not soft by any means and it would be a foolish and a wee bit cowardly to imply that on a forum.

Would say more about you than him.

Did it result in injury B2K ?

What did "Leeds" actually say?

Hardaker has now changed is mind. It wasn't an elbow according to his tweet.

Yes, legal or not Hardaker was unable to play the rest of the game

I agree Hardakers tweet was foolish, I've also read that McDermott wanted another look at it.

I wasn't at the press conference and just wanted to know what Leeds had claimed regarding the other things Disco mentioned?

Great Post

I can confirm without a shadow of a doubt that the ref put the incident on report before he saw Hardakers tweet.

Wrong, I think you'll find the majority (and certainly myself) defending Sam Moa for a worse challenge last season.



Again, that is wrong - he has been charged with a "reckless shoulder charge" - now, I ask you this - how is Con Mika given NFA "making a legitimate attempt at a tackle" for his flying headbutt whilst Chase is charged for a reckless challenge where his feet are set and the attacking player has lost balance and falls into the challenge?

It isn't an anti-Cas thing, it's a consistency thing.



The RFL disciplinary system is FAR from robust and the rules are worded in a way in which they can be left open to interpretation

As for your comments about prejudicial hearings - there were 2 red cards this weekend, Rangi Chase getting taken out off the ball, a flying headbutt and Jamie Peacock ripping someones head off. Which tackle got the most attention? The one that the opposition & Sky kicked up a stink about, one that was deemed legal by the officials and that is the only one outside of the red cards that have been called up to face a ban, again, despite being deemed legal by the officials and no clear video of the incident.



He might not be soft but he's a typical Whino. Who like Luke Burgess with the team bus window incident, got proven wrong.

It's all noise Gronk.

Ask yourself this question - Cas and Wakey play each other; Justin Poore takes Chase out with a full-blooded hit, that *may* have involved contact with the head and leaves him dazed and confused on the floor. The referee is unsure what happened, so puts the incident on report to be looked at later.

Do you (and your fellow pitchfork wielders) say, "fair enough - it was a big hit," or do you expect Poore to be called to account for that tackle, so the disciplinary committee can have a look at it and hear his side of the story?

Calm down dear - this is about player welfare, not persecuting poor little innocent Rangi.

It wasn't put on report, the only signal Tim Roby gave was scrum, Castleford head & feed. Roby was also stood no more than 3 yards away from the incident and had a clear view of it, so are the committee questioning the ability of one of their full time officials?



If there's a worse challenge in the same week let off for a "legitimate" attempt at a tackle then it would be daft, just as this is now.

Does Chase also fall face first into the challenge due to breaking a previous tackle attempt?


If it's all about player welfare then:
Why is Con Mika not charged nor asked to "explain himself" - penalty given during the game
Why is Jamie Peacock not charged nor asked to "explain himself" - penalty given during the game
Why is Justin Poore not charged or even cited for standing on Withers head - no penalty given during the game and rightly so

But if it's all about "player welfare" then all those cases would have been called up.

Now stop trolling, as per usual.

So being the fair judge of a situation that you are Bren, what would you describe Hardacker's "he got me with his elbow" 2 days later "erm shoulder" Tweet? A lack of class? football esque drama to get the opposition in trouble?

Gets dropped by rangi.... He hit me with his elbow

Oh wait it's wasn't

Cowardly, soft, vindictive and an insult to a game normally played by men !!!

Enough about the drunken violent criminal Rangi Chase and his reputation for cowardly attacks to the heads of three quarters. What about hardaker?

The idea that Hardaker is some how to blame for Chase getting punished for hitting him in the head is only slightly less ridiculous than when Gareth Thomas got the blame for Cas being punished for their fans being homophobic.

No doubt those who want Chase bannned will be very quick to defend players of their club when they are up on charges for similar offences...or escape them.

Have you ever copped a tackle where you couldn't honestly say what hit you? I have. Hardaker saw arm, felt contact, saw stars. If he assumed elbow, saw footage and changed his mind, what's actually wrong with that?

This all seems a bit of a storm in a teacup to me. Disciplinary will look at an incident involving a possible high shot, in line with the rules. They'll review the footage they have and reacha conclusion. If they think it was a reckless high shot (note nobody's actually said it was deliberate) he'll get a short ban. A warning on technique is probably more likely given the footage on Sky was pretty inconclusive.

This somehow seems to have whipped up into a storm of persecution and vilification based on about 4 tweets from Hardaker and Fozzard and a couple of highly inconclusive stills (by inconclusive, I mean only that the one posted on here seem to show some contact, there is no way to say they are THE moment of impact, so they prove absolutely nothing at all either way).

As for Hardaker on any pro RL player being soft, I reckon if I ran at full tilt and stumbled head first in to Rangi chase's shoulder (whether he moved his shoulder towards my head or not) I'd know about it!

Whole thing's a non-issue. Even if he is found guilty, its of a reckless shoulder charge, not assault and battery.