nothing tackle...... penalty sufficient

It looked bad enough for one game on the SL show tonight. There is footage and Bennie caught Gale on left side of the jaw with a clenched hand. Bang to rights from that angle I'd say, a definite ban unless there is another video angle, which I doubt.

Watching that video it doesn't look late at all, Benny is about one step away from Gale at full pelt when the ball is passed. Gale certainly doesn't have his back to him like some were suggesting earlier.

Definitely high though, no question there, and frankly not surprising either...

It's funny because the way it was reported by the Cas lot, it sounded like a flat out attack on a defenseless half back from behind, 4 secs after the ball had gone. As it happens, it's just a love tap that comes off the shoulder, pretty much as he releases the ball. I'd like to think penalty sufficient, although I wouldn't argue with 1 match as he's been charged. 2 matches would be ridiculous given some of the things that go unpunished.

The trouble with these incidents is the inconsistency of the officials and the rules being to open. Can't we just go to a situation of players passing or kicking the ball who are hit after the ball has left there feet/hands, attacking player is sin binned?

I know there's a lot of it about and some teams would have more in the bin than on the pitch. Lets have a rule that everyone knows what the punishment is. Believe me I am not one for softening the game but the rules have to be understood by coaches, players and fans alike.

The disciplinary committee need livening up, when looking at the situation at hand, questions like "did he shoulder barge"? simple yes or no answer not a day of justification as to whether his hands and arms were above the horizontal, blah blah. The game needs to grow some balls!

We outlaw a shoulder charge but allow players every week to be taken down in cannonball tackles by trying to justify the place and direction of the hit. Cannonball tackle = ban, Shoulder charge = ban. Player making contact with the ref, should never be in a players mind to do that instead of the stupid ban stick them in the sin bin straight away, end of matter.

The Westwood/Gale thing, did Westwood contact the head its a yes or no folks. If yes its a simple red card and on report if further action is needed. Did Gale really say he was milking it? If he did then that's another issue to deal with.

The message from me is if there's an indiscretion punish it as hard as you can. That will create the consistency we all crave.

Anyway rant over, off to a disciplinary hearing for a member of staff.

Yes, of course he did. He just wanted an excuse to leave the field and take a trip to Pontefract A+E.

Technically, it cannot be anything other than late. You cannot tackle a player not in possession and gale clearly doesn't have the ball.
However, it's not ridiculously late but it is a bit late and high.
I always err towards the harsh side of penalising foul play so don't think he could complain at two games, though a one match suspension would be consistent with other incidents this season.

Totally agree, any late shot immediate sin bin. None of this "was he committed" rubbish - the onus is on the defender not to put the opposistion player at risk of unnecessary injury. Any high shot, put them in the bin. It would soon sort it out.

Just watched the Superleague Show. Wasn't there a late tackle on GOB after he had kicked the ball? Not much being said over that one.

Yea, I would imagine it has not been referred as it would have been no more than a penalty had one of the officials seen it.

One of our players cops an "unseen by the review panel " late shot nearly every week.

O'brien often seems to be a victim, I remember Nick Scruton getting him late early on when he was on loan with us. Forced him off after about five minutes.

Maybe some people are prone to getting hit whereas older heads are more able to avoid these situations by knowing which opponent is likely to do late shots. But ,on the other hand, Gaz is not really a novice any more. I remember seeing Rob Burrow copping a high one off Jamie Lyon in a CC game which was not really malicious but more to do with the height difference between the two & Burrow ducking to avoid the tackle anyway.I think Lyon got a red card.

Quote ="Rugby"This is the tackle: www.skysports.com/rugby-league/n ... due-to-ban Russell on Wire FM tomorrow morning at 8am so somebody might be able to listen and hear about his injury!'" So it wasn't a late shoulder charge to the head. It was a chop/swinging arm in the face. That's just a penalty, possibly should have been a sin-bin. Silly play from Benny but wasn't that bad at all.

Quote ="Rugby"This is the tackle: www.skysports.com/rugby-league/n ... due-to-ban Russell on Wire FM tomorrow morning at 8am so somebody might be able to listen and hear about his injury!'" So it wasn't a late shoulder charge to the head. It was a chop/swinging arm in the face. That's just a penalty, possibly should have been a sin-bin. Silly play from Benny but wasn't that bad at all.

I don't agree with that first point and I'm getting sick of players (Brough at Hudds especially) moaning about tackles being late (on his kicks) when they aren't.

If a player has already made the move to tackle an opponent and within the seconds that follow that player has moved the ball on or kicked it and then he gets creamed because the tackler has committed himself to the tackle; there's nowt wrong with that. It's a tackle after the ball has gone but it's not late.

And I would complain at two games for that from Westwood. Yes it was high and it was silly but bloody hell it wasn't that bad at all.

Did anybody listen to this - any news?

Does anyone other than Rubber Duckie in his taxi actually listen to Wire FM?

Nothing on his Twitter account about an injury

When do we find out if Westwood is banned and for how long?

I can kind of see your point, but technically (in the actual rules), you cannot make contact with a player who does not have possession of the ball. There is no sort of 'time lapse' that says you have, for example, one second in which you are allowed to tackle the player after he has had possession. If a player doesn't have possession of the ball, you just cannot tackle him and stil be within the rules of the game.

As said I don't think Westwood was ridiculously late, but he was late. That would have justified a penalty. The problem he has got is that he made contact with the head, and this would be foul play whether Gale had the ball or not!
One match would fit with similar offences this season.

I'd say so and I think the officials should be stronger at the time and bin him, it was high enough to be a yellow. Westwood was silly to do what he did.

On the tackling; it's a bit of a grey area, you can't pull out of some tackles but as you say you can't hit a man who isn't in possession. In on the side of "if committed, let it go" as long as it's not high or from behind.

The trouble with that approach to tackling is that a late shot on a kicker, even if it is not high, is dangerous due to the fact he is generally stood one one leg and therefore potential for injury in high.

Completely agree re officials. For me, any penalty that endangers the safety of another player shoul be an immediate 10 minutes. This includes all contact with the head, every late tackle, pressure on the joints and illegal lifting.

If we did that Wigan would play the best part of every game with 11 men!
The RFL seem to highlight certain things at times. We've just had a run of players being charged with unnecessary pressure on the joint and a lot of head shots seem to have been let go.

I'll answer my own question, Russell to miss out this weekend. www.wirefm.com/news/local-sport/ ... -the-semi/

I'll answer my own question, Russell to miss out this weekend. www.wirefm.com/news/local-sport/ ... -the-semi/

Sounds fine to me. Small price to pay for improving player safety.