Any head clash will clearly be accidental 99% of the time. However, what parameters are there to say who is the offender? Most of the time the tackler is the one who comes off worse and the play is subsequently stopped. Injured
player receives treatment. Tackle count continues. No penalty. Does it become a case of if the attacker loses possession it then becomes a penalty? What I'm saying is, most head clashes don't often result in a penalty.

For the record. In theory Paterson's hand off in the first half was straight into (Tim Smith?) chops. Contact with the head? Try disallowed? Penalty?

No charge, accidental clash heads according to the RFL today.

Common sense prevails.
Probably a penalty, nothing more.

Yes, I can read thanks. Im just choosing not to get into a forum argument, and judging from your last post, thats what you're looking for in my opinion.

Rugby league has an overwhelming focus on science, and part of that is tackling...Ie A player is coached to tackle/make an impact on a ball carriers upper body. In science terms, this is more energy sapping for a ball carrier and without getting too technical, it is one scientific way of winning the energy/physical battle which ultimately leads to contributing towards winning the game. There are also psychological effects on a player who is dominated/dominates a tackle...and again, without getting into a full blown science lesson, this is a contributing factor to how a game pans out. Due to the aforementioned, players are encourged to make that heavy physical contact and one way is via the tackling technique that Con Mika misjudged on this occasion. In years gone by, Ie before science played such a heavy part in the game, players bent their backs, made sure they got their head in the right place and made a traditional tackle around the legs/waiste.

As ive said on this topic previously, I dont think Mika was in the wrong to the point where he deserved punishment for his actions as I shared the opinion that it was an accident, contrary to how youve suggested I made it sound. The reason why I said that I could see him getting a letter about his tackling technique was based on the fact that he did get it wrong, and there were/are things that can be done to ensure these accidents dont happen again - player safety in mind. Couple that with my opinion of the RFL disciplinary system, I envisaged some form of mild reprimand.

On this weeks backchat, Stevo said that Mika should have been sent off, perhaps send an email into the sky team as you appear to have some very passionate views on the subject.

Indeed. Ganson got that decision spot on, and indeed most impartial observers seem to have thought he reffed it well. I agree.

I think most Wakey fans agree that the tackle was misjudged rather than malicious, and that Ganson responded appropriately.

Wasn't a penalty in my opinion. Total freak accident that he made contact with the head.

A prop has no business taking the ball up from a kick off - Are you mental???

This what the rule book says;


15 Misconduct

Definition of misconduct 1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:

(a) trips, kicks or strikes another player.

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

It may not have been intentional but it was reckless or careless and he made contact with Amor's head therefore a penalty. Ref was right to put it on report: disciplinary panel was right to judge that it was unintentional so no further action. No debate for me.

In which case, it was a penalty, as the rules clearly state.

An incident notable by its lack of drama - accidental head-butt, penalty awarded, player ok after a little sit down; happy days.

If all contact with the head should result in a penalty (whether accidental or otherwise) what happens if the ball carrier, slips and catches the defenders knee in the head? Is this then a penalty because contact has been made with the head? Same goes for all accidental head clashes

But nobody's said that "all contact with the head should result in a penalty" so no it shouldn't be a penalty and precisely the same applies to other accidental head clashes unless the ref thinks it was a reckless or careless challenge. To paraphrase monty python - this thread is deceased- it is a non thread.

Several posters have mentioned Mika made contact with the head, therefore it's a penalty but I agree it's a bit of a pointless thread now, at least he didn't get banned!

30 years watching the game and never seen an accidental head clash penalised before. Guess if you watch the game long enough you will see the ref stuff up in every possible way!

I cant believe Rovers teach their players to tackle with their heads!

The point is Mika has to be more careful when going into a tackle. In the end if he'd attempted to make a "regular" tackle he wouldn't have clashed heads because his back would have been bent to make the tackle.

An unfortunate accident, these things happen. Mika lined him up ok, it was Amor getting his footwork wrong that caused the awkward collision. If Mika had been the one ko'd would Rovers have got a penalty?

15 Misconduct

Definition of misconduct 1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:

(a) trips, kicks or strikes another player.

(b) [uwhen effecting or attempting to effect a tackle[/u makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

No Mika wouldnt have got a penalty because Amor wasnt the player "effecting or attempting to effect a tackle"

No-ones saying it wasn't an accident. Most high tackles are accidents, they should still be penalised. Mika did line him up, then got it wrong. He also lined up for a big shot, if he'd attempted a regular tackle instead then his head wouldn't have made contact with Amor's.

But it wasn't a high tackle was it? It was an accidental clash of heads... www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?4129 The kind that we (unfortunately) see quite frequently. That don't normally result in penalties. I was only half watching the Bradford vs Cas game but did I see Jamie Langley getting cleaned up after a head clash? Was there a penalty given for that?

But it wasn't a high tackle was it? It was an accidental clash of heads... www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?4129 The kind that we (unfortunately) see quite frequently. That don't normally result in penalties. I was only half watching the Bradford vs Cas game but did I see Jamie Langley getting cleaned up after a head clash? Was there a penalty given for that?

Quote ="Wildmoose"But it wasn't a high tackle was it? It was an accidental clash of heads... www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?4129 The kind that we (unfortunately) see quite frequently. That don't normally result in penalties. I was only half watching the Bradford vs Cas game but did I see Jamie Langley getting cleaned up after a head clash? Was there a penalty given for that?'" Readings not your strong point is it.

Quote ="Wildmoose"But it wasn't a high tackle was it? It was an accidental clash of heads... www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?4129 The kind that we (unfortunately) see quite frequently. That don't normally result in penalties. I was only half watching the Bradford vs Cas game but did I see Jamie Langley getting cleaned up after a head clash? Was there a penalty given for that?'" Readings not your strong point is it.

Semantics aside, it just shows how tough these guys are, and I for one thank each and every player who puts their body on the line every week no matter which club they play for, or in which league.

Care to elaborate?

'Details of Charge / Reason for NF Player makes legitimate attempt to tackle. Accidental head clash'

Seems pretty clear cut to me?