errrr...technically speaking you do!

Had Farrell actually gone for the ball then although he may have given a penalty, the ref wouldnt have sinbinned him.

jump with your back to the ball....is that a charge down?....do you need your hands in the air?...I rest my case you balloons

If he wanted to hurt McGuire he wouldn't have jumped, his technique wasn't great but he was definitely trying to charge the ball down.

the rules clearly say you can charge the ball down with any part of your body but as soon as you make contact with the kicker it is a penalty....with Farrell he chose 2 jump towards mcguire so it is his own fault..reguarding the sinbin it was harsh but turning his back didn't help his cause

Urrrm no, you can make contact with the kicker as long as you were already committed to the tackle/ball charge.

Farrell leapt with his back to McGuire and hit him sideways on with his shoulder. That is what got him sin binned, he did not look as if his intention was to get the ball as he wasn't looking for the ball and didn't have his arms up (to make as big a barrier as possible to block the kick with). Had he been facing McGuire with his arms raised it may still have been a penalty (those decisions can go either way) but Farrell wouldn't have got ten minutes as his intention would clearly have been to get the ball and not the man.

Maybe Bentham could have sin binned Peacock and Senior too but I have no complaints about the binning of Farrell.

My view on the game was there wasnt going to be many pts scored with the conditions i thought we looked comfortable with the leeds poor attack ive slated wigan in the past when we have lost games ( noble era )but wigan were the better team by far yesterday in my opinion hope we dont slip down the table in the last 12 games but teams better watch out cos 2 to 3 years time wigan will dominate

urrrrrrm make your mind up.......i stated in my comment you cant make contact with the kicker if charging down which in the rules you cant but in yours you say you can,WRONG....but you also say you can make contact if committed to a tackle which in the rulebook you can....its just in my view there is a big differance between tackle and charge down

There's nothing wrong with going for the man. Just because it [ilooks[/i like a player is about to kick the ball doesn't mean you have to "go for the ball" rather than the man. As long as you don't commence your tackle once the kick has been made you have done nothing wrong, hence the rules accommodating for "commitment" to the tackle.

are you saying its ok to go for the kicker with a shoulder or with your back turned or are you meaning it going into a tackle????

if he is committed and could not pull out

but stated before in a quote of mine you cant make contact with the kicker charging the ball down if you do it is then a penalty but if you are going in for a tackle and are committed it is no penalty there is a big differance between tackle and charge down...but that is the rule....

you can make contact if you were committed and not just late, big problem in the rule is its all down to how the ref sees it, not just black and white

iam sorry but you cant the rules state clearly that you cant make contact with the kicker when charging the ball down weather committed or not,you can only make contact if going in for the tackle and in yesterdays case farrell did not aim for the ball and turned his back...

what i will agree with is you will see that in every game and depending on which side the ref got outta bed is a matter of how he deals with it

I agree with you. Many kicks are charged down with the back because a player doesn't want the ball in the face. If someone merely goes with arms and facing the kicker the ball could easily smash in his face.

Been away for the weekend but managed to watch both television cup semi finals. Thoughts on the Leeds v Wigan game;

How did we get away with so many forward passes?
Was John Kear pro-Leeds/Yorkshire or anti-Wigan?
Liam Farrell was in the air when Danny McGuire kicked that ball so how was he supposed to stop himself moving?
Keith Senior should have gone to the bin for kicking Joel Tomkins.

If it was the first time this season a player has been sin-binned for a challenge on the kicker then I could understand some of the angst. It wasn't though.

Without having to think too hard, Cockayne was binned last week at Knowsley Road and Leuluai (Kylie) at Les Catalans. Any others?

In that respect I'd say it was a consistent call with some others seen this season.

tvoc.

You are opposition fan whose views I respect, as you are normally very fair. What did you think of the Senior kicking out incident?

While I don't think Senior deliberately intended to cause injury to any of the tacklers, the action was reckless and potentially dangerous.

Bentham could have placed the incident on report but I would still expect it to be picked up by the video review panel and referred to the disciplinary. From there a warning letter to Senior and a general reminder to the game at large that players should allow the referee to control the ruck.

The feet should be used for playing the ball not lashing out in frustration.

I dont really see what excuse Senior can have for kicking a good 3ft into the air. There is always a chance you could kick someone in the head doing that, as happened, and he should have been sin binned.

On Farrell I have seen players sin binned for similar things, likewise I have seen some get away with it. The way Farrell turned his back and led with the shoulder and his arms down made it look worse than it was. If he had raised his arms and made some attempt to block the ball then he wouldnt have been sin binned in my opinion.

TVOC, What did Tompkins get for a similar kicking incident the other year.

I think it was Tompkins (maybe Mathers) on Burrow at Wigan?

Sam Tomkins kicked out at Danny Sculthorpe when we played Wakefield. A penalty was given. No sinbin, sending off or ban was dished out.

I think it was 2008, someone did it to Rob Burrow at wigan, may have been Mathers, It was identical to Seniors (unintentional IMO) and I was just wondering if the rfl took any action on that occasion.

Quote ="Tony Soprano"I think it was 2008, someone did it to Rob Burrow at wigan, may have been Mathers, It was identical to Seniors (unintentional IMO) and I was just wondering if the rfl took any action on that occasion.'" It's a pertinent point and well recalled by the way. It was referred to the RFL full disciplinary panel whose decision is contained here: www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=637 Potentially dangerous, unclear intentions, warning letter sent.

Quote ="Tony Soprano"I think it was 2008, someone did it to Rob Burrow at wigan, may have been Mathers, It was identical to Seniors (unintentional IMO) and I was just wondering if the rfl took any action on that occasion.'" It's a pertinent point and well recalled by the way. It was referred to the RFL full disciplinary panel whose decision is contained here: www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=637 Potentially dangerous, unclear intentions, warning letter sent.

For me, its just a lack of common sense from the officials. Instead of just prioritising protecting kickers from genuinely late and wreckless hits, they produce a black and white rule for the refs to follow to the letter.

Farrell shouldn't have been sinbinned, imo there was no intention or likelyhood of hurting McGuire.

Until the ball is actually out of hand, there is still a chance the player could dummy and run. Therefore, tackles at the point of kick or immedialty after are going to happen, but its a contact sport. The refs just need to be able to distinguish between genuine attempts and wreckless late challenges.

Also, this rule will encourage the subtle art of diving after the kick's been made, which seems to occur every so often.