I don't live in a world where malice is irrelevant. I'd say it's very relevant when looking at a player injuring another player.

So your point of view is that Sneyd from a stationary position has no knowledge for the potential outcome of his action. The action being the role and twist. That did happen that's a fact. That's why Mags is injured.

I don't think malice is important in this case. Even if he isn't trying to break mags anckle the tackle isn't a fair one he has no right to be putting undue pressure on the joint to slow down play or injure. The tackle was illegal not part of the game, malice in this case for me is irrelevant.

Clearly it's a bad tackle and has ended horribly for DM and I wish him a speedy recovery.

I can't agree that malice is irrelevant in any circumstance though. Why would we ever think that a malicious intent to injure is an irrelevance in RL?

I'm not saying there is nothing wrong with the tackle, but I struggle to understand malice being irrelevant. Why was Terry Newton on Sean Long so poor - it was the obvious malice and it is relevant to all actions on a RL pitch.

As poor as this tackle was (and it deserves a lengthy ban) I don't think it was done with malice (unlike the other twisting example from the Championship recently that was clearly a deliberate intent to injure).

That's an opinion, some will disagree (that's fine) and only Sneyd will know for sure.

Get well soon DM.

Can I put it like this. If you undertake an action which you have a comprehension of the potential outcome (a horrific one in this case) and you do it anyway, it's just as bad if you mean it or not. You know what might happen. It's a little daft but it's like Rocky 4 where he say with no malice "if he dies he dies" Sneyd knew what could happen and did it regardless.

Snivelling sickening Sneyd.

No malice? If you twist someone's ankle, on purpose, then there must be some sort of malice. To say there isn't, is like saying you weren't trying break someone's nose after punching them in the face.

Maybe I need to see a better video, I've only seen the vine on my mob on the way into work, but looked like he was trying to turn the player and slow the PTB.

Freely admit a better view might change my mind. . . . .

What does intent look like?

I'd also point out that whilst Sneyd may not have set out to injure anyone. All of his actions were deliberate there was nothing accidental to what he did.

Is delaying the Play of the Ball illegal? Yes.

Is rolling/twisting whilst holding someones legs illegal? Yes.

I don't really see what point Sneyd's defendants are trying to make, deliberate or not, malicious or not, nice guy or not, thug or not, he should be banned (imo) for at least as many games as his victim is going to miss.

As to McGuire being booked too for trying to stop someone from causing him injury, it's just laughable, or it would be if he wasn't in the end so seriously injured! Shame on the ref' and shame on Sneyd's advocates.

I don't know why people keep having to reiterate this, but it doesn't matter what he was 'trying' to do. He still DID what he did - he rolled a players legs not once, but twice in a crocodile roll, even as the player was trying to kick away. Most of the time, a player doesn't head out with the intention to injure another - unfortunately this was a lapse of judgement - but it doesn't mean you should brush it off because he was trying to do something else.

And I don't know how why I need to reiterate that IN MY OPINION there is a big difference between a) trying to turn over a player to slow down a PTB and b) trying to break someone's leg.

You may not see any distinction, I do -no more to it really. I've already said it ended up a bad challenge and he'll be punished accordingly but my view of him as a person and player is influenced by whether I think he maliciously set out to injure an opponent. Quite simple really.

I agree theres a difference, and that should be taken into account when the disciplinary meets, but, I still think his ban should be at minimum as long as McGuire's injury keeps him out for, because Sneyd's intention was always to cheat and in doing that he has seriously injured another player.

I can't see the relevance of intent or malice - neither of which are provable anyway; the fact is that Sneyd turned an opponents ankle through 360 degrees and appears to have inflicted catastrophic damage as a result - an entirely foreseeable and preventable outcome. That's unacceptable on the field and endless navel-gazing about whether he meant it or not doesn't advance the argument. He did it - and should have the book thrown at him - and only he'll know whether he's sitting out the rest of the season for an act of thuggery, or stupidity.

Grubby tactics like this should be dealt with in the harshest possible way - if for no other reason than to send a message to those coaches and players who still labour under the misconception that it's part of the game; it really isn't.

The act that Sneyd used (twisting the ankle) isn't used to try and turn the player over. You can't physically do that by twisting an ankle.
It's designed, coached and used to try and cause as much physical pain as possible to the player that he turns himself over to stop the pain.
That it went further and caused injury is not mitigation for Sneyd. He knew it had the possibility of causing injury yet did it anyway. In exactly the same way as Chase's cannonball tackle on Ferres did.

Time to stop these sh|thouse, cowardly tactics and tackles that serve no purpose in our game and aren't conducive with the values we should want in our sport.
Long, long bans for players. Fines and bans for the coaches that condone and allow/encourage these things to happen in their teams and fines and punishments for the clubs that allow their coaches to continue to do these things.

I think there are some OTT comments on here. Looking at the footage Sneyd has obviously rolled his ankle and should be rightly punished. This would be a 3-5 game ban if you follow the guidelines. That would be more if Sneyd has a history of foul play as it needs to be made clear its unacceptable. However, I'm not a believer in that the offender should be out for the same amount of time as the injured player. This should only occur if the offender has previous for foul play which causes injury.

Firstly it looks like the initial roll could be construed (from the RFL assessment of other leg twists) as part of the momentum from the forces between both players in the intial contact/tackle, however the latter part is definitely Sneyd twisting/rolling DMs leg when he is regaining his feet.

Is it bad, yes, it's out of order though not the worst you'll ever see, not by a long stretch.
is it a leg breaker/alligator roll as some have described it as, no it isn't.
Does Sneyd do 'it' deliberately, yes, he's obviously trying to stop DM from playing the ball
Is it malicious (i.e. to cause injury), no, does that allow a differential in the games given, dunno, depends which people are sitting on the panel and what they've had for breakfast/arguement with the missus previous night etc (aka, inconsistant application/interpretation of the rules)
Lastly, does the action of Sneyd allow DM free reign to kick a player in the face with his boot, no.
3-4 matches* for Sneyd and a stern warning to DM for striking with his boot/studs directly to a players head.

*based on Elima's disgusting and very deliberate ankle and knee twist against Heremia last season which the RFL 'mitigated' with saying there was 'momentum' and got 4 games. Elima's was far far worse than what Sneyd did IMO, YMMV

I think he didn't do it to break someone leg, he did it to slow the play down. But he must have known that action was dangerous and could result in serious injury. He went into the tackle attempting and carrying out a dangerous tackle. I don't think it matters if he is trying to illegally slow play down or break a leg he went with the intention of doing an illegal tackle.
I could understand your point of view with say a miss timed lazy high tackle but in this instance either way he shouldn't have been doing the tackle at all, needs a stiff penalty

Could have been worse, could have spat at him.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all - of course there's a distinction. But it doesn't matter what he was 'trying' to do - he still did it - and it was avoidable.

But there has to be a difference between whether he meant it or nor not. Someone making a tackle to cover the ball, which bounces off into the ball-carriers mush is different to a Moriarty forearm to the jaw of Hugh Waddell.

Quite, and he'll be punished accordingly.

My personal opinion of Sneyd as a human being following his actions has about as much relevance to the disciplinary outcome as it does to Grexit.

But the argument isn't that he didn't mean to twist just that he didn't mean to cause serious injury. There is nothing about any of his actions that were accidental.

To use your example it would be like deliberately swinging the arm and hitting a player in the face and then saying I only meant to hit him hard enough that he dropped the ball I didn't mean to break his jaw.

i don't think sneyd intended to hurt mcguire by any stretch, but he must have known that by doing what he did it had potential to cause a serious injury to his opponent?

there are too many of these unsavoury "Tackles" in the game now and for me, the only way to stop it is for the RFL to be handing out huge bans and fines, if it is players from certain clubs, then fine the coaches, too many nasty "tackles" whether they cause serious injury or not are going unpunished and that needs addressing

Unless the book is thrown (IMO Sneyd should be banned for how many games McGuire will miss), cowardly acts like this will continue. A message needs to be sent out and this could be done by making an example out of Sneyd. Be interesting to see what the RFL will do - my guess is that they will bottle it.