Wasn't really a throw though was it? In fact I'd say there wasn't much in it.

As Melbourne Storm CEO Chris Johns said once after a suspension given to Stephen Kearney "we might as well all start wearing skirts".

I made it up for comedy effect.

He seems to drop his whole body weight onto Hodgson's head/kneck. It could have seriously injured Hodgson, though I'm sure that wasn't the intention. IIRC he is not looking at Hodgson when he commits the act which would suggest not deliberate.

Jeff Lima:
"Incident considered Dangerous Contact on 41st minute (Moa)
Decision No charge
Details of Charge / Reason for NF Player places some weight on opponent’s neck/shoulder however then makes room for opponent’s head. Are significant contributions from attacking player and fellow defender in dynamics of tackle MRP - NFA"

All Bateman was trying to do was get the tackled player down on the floor. It loooked far worse than it was, and unless Bateman has a step in his chest, the only pressure on the neck/head will have been from the back rather than from the top.

Bateman was holding the player legitimately, he was trying to bring him to ground legitimately, it was just that due to the position the tackled player was putr in at that moment by Bateman, himself, and the other tackler he was lined up in a sort of sitting up configuartion. It was a silly thing to do, and he won't use that "technique again" but a telling off would be more than ample. As for Grade D? Absolutely ridiculous.

You see this type of tackle every week. Why pick one instance out? The only thing that needs to come out from this is greater clarity of what is and is not acceptable! Look at people trying to dislodge a ball with their feet as a try is being scored. It happens regularly but rarely is it penalised!

In over 30 years I am struggling to remember a tackle like that.

The only reason it's up before the beak is due to the stoppage in play. Had Hodgson been one of the "bigger" guys on the park I don't think the injury would have occurred. It wasn't clever, but it wasn't intentional either.

Sell him....misses more games than Langely

It's the 'intentional' part of it that baffles me.

OK, dangerous it may well have been, but there was not a jot of intent in that. Bizarre.

Hmmm a tackle technique you'll see half a dozen times in a game (the player offended against scoring a vital try 2 minutes later) is a Grade D offence but leathering someone in the face with your elbow resulting in them requiring surgery and puts them out for four months is a Grade C offence?

Ask Brett Hodgson what he'd rather have been on the receiving end of. I'm sure he'd be much happier right now eating his food through a straw.

Wonder if John Bateman was wanted by Steve McNamara for the Exiles matches he'd be looking at a grade C offence or less? Of course not that would be unthinkable.

Details now up on RFL website:

"Incident considered Dangerous contact in 36th minute (Hodgson)
Decision Charge
Details of Charge / Reason for NF Law: 15.1(i) Detail: Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of his body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle Grade: D MRP - Referred to tribunal
Range of Recommended Sanctions in relation to Charged Grade* 3-5 matches"

This makes it as clear as mud.
15.1(i) is "(i) behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game.". The detail quoted in the citation is not in the rules.

15.1 (b) is the closest:
"when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly."

The choice of wording is therefore weird and inexplicable. Am I missing something? It reads as if they are quoting froma rule, which says such things - but it doesn't!?! Can you be up before the beak for a rule they just made up?!?

Well put and bang on from an arm chair neutral on Saturday (thats me BTW)

Rugby league has now become a non contact sport.

It is the job of the panel to judge intent I would have thought. Is intent relevant? Bridge could claim he had no intent of breaking Jeffries jaw when he dropped his forearm on the ball in the previous game, Chase must have been judged not to deliberately smash whatshisface's jaw.

Is this a joke...that tackle is deemed to be worth 3-5 games? Deary me. As Badger said, if there hadn't have a pause in the game I doubt there would have been anything said about the tackle. It didn't look intentional to me, why would it have been? There certainly didn't appear to be any verbals between the two players beforehand.

Didn't Bateman give him a sort of pat/tap on the back afterwards? Didn't seem to be any malice and the ref didn't even call a penalty. How can a tackle warranting a 3-5 game ban not warrant a penalty? Madness.

fev didnt get a penalty for rangis effort on ropati! thats what the on report system is used for when the ref suspects something has happened but didnt see it!

and the fact that hodgson wasnt injured has nothing to do with it, it is the fact that he could of been injured and any contact or undue pressure on the neck has always been illegal in this game.

personally i think yes it was a bad tackle but more poor technique than intent and a ban of 1-2 games would of sufficed to give him some cooling of time and chance to work on technique

Why he had to be slammed on the floor is also baffling...he was all ready in a position from which he couldn't off load or do anything. why he needed to be picked up from a sitting down position to be dropped so your head is forced down and someone falling on it is what gets me. Like its been said before... IMO poor technique, would have agreed with 1-2 games and a slap on the wrist.

Couldn't make out what the fuss was about, even after seeing the replays. I'm knocking 50 and not especially fit but don't reckon I'd be particularly affected by a tackle like that. Maybe jarred a bit but nothing worse.

Absoluteley ridciulous, the challenge was clumsy, and probably deserved a 1-2 game ban at the very most. Where on earth have they got 3-5 from??? I have seen this tackle so many times and it can be dangerous, but never has it been punished until now. I gurantee if that game wasn't on the tele nothing would have come of this incident. The inconsistencies are a joke and its interesting to see Carvell has got off with kicking out again. You don't regain your feet by kicking out.

really? you're defending that? it was a house tackle, i'd have been disgusted had it been a warrington player doing that.

yeah cos thats much better than potentially being in a wheelchair due to a severe neck injury.

It was a type of crusher tackle which as we all know are a big no no.

Haha what makes me laugh is that the MAJORITY (not all) of wire fans wouldn't be bothered if it had been the other way round and don't pretend you wouldn't.

Last game Bridge could have easily snapped Jeffries neck back with that forearm and there was intent in that. Similar with Chase's forearm (except he did damage). If Bridge gets 1 game and Chase 3-4 games then Bateman should get 2 games as I rekon its closer to Bridge's incident than Chases. But dont come on here saying you would be disgusted if it was a warrington player performing the tackle.

Imho I wouldn't ban it and don't see anything wrong particularly didnt put pressure on his neck it was spread out through the shoulders and chest mainly. He had Hodgson lifted slightly anyway then when ref shouted held he dropped on him (not picked him up then rammed him into the ground) but literally fell on him. If it had been a warrington player I wouldnt have been bothered just liek Carvells kicking, in my opinion (as a player at semi-pro) then I think that unless your legs go near the opposition head or groin then your okay, all it is is trying to get the player off you and regain your feet a few seconds quicker.

The world has gone mad. Seriously.

Depends what their leeway is with the ban, can they look at now its been sent through as Grade D and say "no intent" and ban him for less than 3 or do they have to either say nothing to answer or min 3 games?

If they are allowed to lower the Grade after the panel reviews it then I agree with you, send it through with intent and let them clear it up but if they can't then they should cite them the other way. Assume no intent and then let them ramp up the ban if they see intent while reviewing.

Anyone know what leeway they have?

No, the ref seen it, he even said "no penalty but I'm putting it on report". How can the ref see a 3-5 game infraction but not call it? The idiocy is the ref if the challenge was so bad.

I don't think there was intent on Bateman's part, his actions after it were apologetic, which is more than what you'll get from most RL players.