Well I STILL think Chris Joynt took a dive...

You actually beat me too it. What is it with threads on here with three words in their title, with the last one being "tackle"?

As everyone seen the picture of Scruton been tackled by 2 Cas players on the T & A website.



Wonder what Red Hall make of that

Does not count. The Sky muppets did not go into a state of collective apoplexy about it, so it never happened.

It was, How can a shoulder charge have been both legal, and reckless.





Let me stop you right there.

The charge as on RFL site is

"Law 15.1(a) (Strikes - Strikes with shoulder - Reckless) Grade B" which was downgraded to A







Wel, if you can't comprehend the point, this won't get far. But I did set out clearly why it was the head that contacted the shoulder, and not the shoulder to the head. And I explained that a head/shoulder contact cannot of itself be illegal, simply because if a player dives into an opponent headfirst, that would equal a penalty against the innocent opponent, which cannot be the rule.



That is why it is confusing. Either the tackle was legal, or it wasn't. We are told it was. Now do you follow?

Hey well, at least we are all talking rugby on here again!



And bickering with OTHER teams' fans.





Anyway, more importantly, any news on that Away shirt yet?

Give it 10 matches

Not bickering, "discussing".



Oh, and 1st week in March methinks. Not that I know anything, plus I'm mad.

We should have told the Aussies to stick it.



It's our game we invented it. The day they invent their own game (I don't count Gaelic football played with a Rugby ball on a Cricket pitch BTW) they can then dictate the rules.

Ladies and Gentlemen - we have an explanation. And very possibly, a final word.







It's smoke and mirrors, as it was the "whiplash" on impact that sent O'Brien's head into contact with Scruton's shoulder, and nobody I know has suggested that Scruton's shoulder went on some subsequent upward trajectory, into the head, but if that had been what happened, then this would be a reasonable finding.



Anyway, here's my drawn line:

______________________________________________________________________________

So, to draw a final line under it, in simple terms we can sum up the beak's thought process as: "what the fekk new rules of Newtonian physics can we dream up to get us off the hook without looking total wassocks?"?



Sounds more like quantum physics to me though, since their case seemed to have been built either on Scruton's shoulder being in two places at once, or on not being able to know both its position and trajectory at the same time? I guess they thought that if Schrödinger's Cat could be both alive and dead at the same time, then there could be no problem with Scrutes being guilty and innocent at the same time? We mere mortals clearly underestimate the science that goes into these disciplinary reviews.

There is, of course, the fact that Schrödinger is the German equivalent of Scruton. And "Schrödinger's cat" is an anagram of "Scröton's high tackle"