I can't see any reference to that in the laws of the game.

i mean you say this, but these weren't burning issues that could be used to justify getting rid at the time, defence possibly, but i can't recall him having problems passing balls on a break for us. His decision making was usually pretty good.

bearing in mind broadbent and others had handling errors/brainfarts, i'd say its a cas problem rather than just a jake problem.

thats before you even cast an eye at westerman's 15 hour bender a week before the season starting.

Being a Saints player you will obviously have to consider his impeccable previous behaviour ( a la Makinson's nut grab) so I think a ban is likely out of the question.

They'd just appeal it 'til it was overturned anyway

Cas should have had three scores on the board in the first half and with Saints being in front at half time, with the benefit of the slope in the second, I'd gone to do something else rather than watch any more of it.

Cas certainly blew their chances but it was interesting how often they broke the Saints defence by going wide to the pace of Mamo. Food for thought.

Yeah, a lot of our fans blaming Ritson and Hurrell for that, but I suspect it's not entirely their fault. That whole edge was disorganised because Sironen pulled out in the warm up before the game. Which meant Bell playing second row on the right. Sironen communicates well with Hurrell and ensures he only has to worry about his outside shoulder and Makinson is the best defensive winger in Super League so it's not normally a huge issue. Without Sironon and Makinson, Hurrell looked exposed and Ritson is going to take some time to adapt. Good job for us it was Mamo and not Qareqare galloping away as we might have conceeded 60, not 6.

They text Mike Rush last night to pre-emptively apologise for giving him a Grade A - no further action. The cheek of it.

The cheek indeed, I sincerely hope the next time one of our players is cited for a high tackle its a grade a, no further action but I'm willing to bet that's not how it goes. That tackle by Welby was a bad one and it was deliberately to stop the try, I have absolutely no idea how he stayed on the field at the time and then no ban is truly baffling IMO.

So you would red card him and ban him for that? It was with an open hand, first impact was on the top of his arm and it slips up and catches the head with a grab motion. I think he'd have got a yellow for a professional foul had he not given the penalty try, but they don't give both. They could of course have said red card for violent conduct, but I don't think it in any way warrants that. If that happens in the middle of the field, they don't even consider a card.

I think the start the disciplinary have made is good. They are using fines to disincentivise foul play and not bans for minor incidents. Welsby's grab when stepped definitely fits that for me.

No i never mentioned a red and i don't think it was a red but IMO he should have been in the bin for 10 minutes. Some head shots last season saw 3 game bans, no questions, in fact pretty sure we got a similar ban extended for a frivolous appeal, so it will be interesting to see if there is consistency in this sort of decision making.

Important to note that the RFL in conjunction with IMG have looked at that and are using fines instead of bans for most minor incidents this year. I suspect bans will be few and far between for normal players this year and head contact is no longer an automatic card or ban either. Players with bad rep sheets might have more of an issue however, but that is their own fault. The fines look pretty significant too really, £250 for a minor incident, £500 and £1000+ have been mentioned too. That will encourage players to behave more than a 1-3 game ban based on their previous behaviour I'd suggest.

how long before we hear RL is a poor sport, we're not wealthy and fining players who aren't on a kings ransom will be another reason that puts junior players off.

IMG apparantly putting huge pressure on them to have the best players playing and not sat in the stands, which I can understand.

They should start tracking it.

Welsby - Grade A 0 matches / £0 fine
Wardle - Grade B 0 matches / £250 fine
Taufua - Grade B 0 matches / £250 fine
Farrell - Grade B 0 matches / £250 fine
Austin - Grade A 0 matches / £0 fine
Taylor - Grade C 1 match / £0 fine
Minchella - Grade A 0 matches / £0 fine
Smithies - Grade B 0 matches / £250 fine
Ackers - Grade A 0 matches / £0 fine
Hughes - Grade A 0 matches / £250 fine
Amone - Grade B 0 matches / £250 fine

All of those players listed above would have had bans last season, probably 1-2 games. So already they've probably saved half a season worth of rugby combined already.

The RFL Christmas party is going to be FIIIIIRRRRRRREEEEEEEE though. Vegas for a fortnight I've heard. Then Bali for a week of rehab.

So only that dastardly swine Scott Taylor banned so far. Hopefully it stays like this and we see a better product on the field because of it. Any serious foul play can still be dealt with properly, it doesn't prevent that.

For a similar challenge last year Oliver Holmes got 3 matches. We contested ut and he got an extra match!

I'm sort of glad they have changed tact in their approach to this, but I have absolutely no faith that it will be administered consistently. Also if a player gets concussion don't they have to sit out for 12 days? With zero chance of a ban for a high shot expect a few dubious head contacts where teams play each other twice in quick succession, cup games, playoffs etc, that surely has to be discouraged? I'm all for the new concussion protocols by the way but whoever caused the concussion should miss out for the same spell, if not a game more.

I suppose some of the thinking behind this is that clubs could be disadvantaged on match days through HIA protocols & there is a need to keep squads as viable as possible in a sport that isn't really blessed ,to start with, with large playing squads.

But, woe betide the player who verbally offends the lug holes of an opponent or referee.

They can hand out bans and I'm sure they would if they suspect a player was deliberately looking to injure a player's head. But the option to assasinate a team's star players in that scenario has always been there. Never been anything stopping you sending your fringe players you don't need on a head hunting spree or two. I guess Terry Newton was the only player thick enough to make it entirely obvious though.

You would think that in these days of head injuries & permanent damage that can be caused that the RFL would work on re-educating tackling techniques to players throughout the game.
There is totally no need for tackling above elbow height. Let's get back to the exciting days of round the leg tackling which has been sacrificed on the altar of shutting down plays & creating turgid games.

There is too much high contact - shoulder then head - these days.
I don't want to see the best players sent off BUT there has to be a duty of care - and I have to say it's looking like RU are taking a stronger position on this..
Personally I would have been more satisfied with a penalty try and a yellow card for the Welsby offence, but it is what it is.
I'm still not clear whether both punishments are allowed for the one offence.

Clearly there is a different emphasis this year compared to last when many players were sent off for high tackles - or ajudged high tackles.

Just watched the replay of the Leeds v Wton play off match (Briers and the 40m drop goal in the 78th minute to win at Headingly) and I'm glad to say that we don't see as many haymakers these days (how Rob Burrow escaped with his head still attached to his neck is beyond me).

On a separate note - watching that game just shows what a talent Briers was. His kicking was sublime.

Quote ="fez1"Personally I would have been more satisfied with a penalty try and a yellow card for the Welsby offence, but it is what it is. I'm still not clear whether both punishments are allowed for the one offence.'" Yes, they are. When we played Wigan away in 2020, Chris Hill was sent off for a high tackle on Sam Powell, and a penalty try was also awarded. The incident can be seen at around 1 min 40 sec here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UFeEFZ ... =SkySports

Quote ="fez1"Personally I would have been more satisfied with a penalty try and a yellow card for the Welsby offence, but it is what it is. I'm still not clear whether both punishments are allowed for the one offence.'" Yes, they are. When we played Wigan away in 2020, Chris Hill was sent off for a high tackle on Sam Powell, and a penalty try was also awarded. The incident can be seen at around 1 min 40 sec here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UFeEFZ ... =SkySports

That was probably a Wire punishment. Similar to the Leeds forward pass & Saints dubious line speed.

I think people just misunderstand it - it depends what the call is. If the high tackle is worthy of a yellow/red on its own and also happens to stop a player scoring a certain try then you can give the yellow/red and penalty try.

If the above isn’t true then you have 2 options, you either give a penalty and a yellow for the professional foul (ala Makinson in the semi final) or you give the penalty try and no card. You couldn’t give a yellow for a professional foul AND award a penalty try, because the yellow in that instance is for stopping a clear scoring opportunity, which isn’t true if they’ve given the try anyway.

Personally I can’t stand penalty tries, don’t think they should exist. Should always be a penalty and a yellow instead.

Also in this instance I don’t think the high tackle was worthy of a card on its own, he got stepped and mistimed his tackle. Came up off the shoulder. Nothing to see. I’m glad they’re not gonna be retroactively giving bans for that crap any more

I suppose that's true enough. It doesn't really sit right with me that an unfortunate pkayer who receives a head shot could potentially be missing for 2 matches (or maybe even 3 around Easter time) whilst the opposition player who caused it gets to carry on playing.

To be honest, I have no problem with the way the welsby incident was dealt with, so long as all incidents are treated that way through the season. My only real gripe with the judiciary panel is the lack of consistency.

They've made a good start IMO. Everyone knows the difference between a genuinely malicious or very severe impact and the kind of unintentional or low risk stuff technicalitiies that was deemed worthy of a ban in the last few seasons. I think the overzealous approach led to a lot of hysteria from fans, as they were micro analysing every collision in the hope of finding something that could get a rival player banned. People were spending the week raging about who got banned and who didn't and there was frustration everywhere. Also means we get to see players play the game rather than watch it from the stands, which should mean a better product that gets people talking about the rugby not the disciplinary and appeals process. If it does result in players being more reckless they'll have to look at it again, but hopefully it won't.