Dunbar

That's a pretty big fall from grace for the Skolars. Last year they had an A team in the London and South East division as well as their semi-pro firsts. So they have lost their firsts and also the group who maybe would have relished a crack at the Southern Conference who played London and South East last year. As you say, there is a vibrant amateur scene in and around Chiswick, Hammersmith and Acton with Chargers and Wests turning out a first team in the Conference and seconds in the London League and Hammersmith in the Conference. I know there is historically a lot of Aussies and Kiwis in West London which will help these teams but I hope Skolars can build up a competitive side soon.

Unlike the author of the article, I would like us to take a harder line on the voluntary tackle law. I would like the law to be amended to clarify that deliberately going to ground without being tackled is an offence and enforce that. I lose count of the number of times across games that a player is bringing the ball away from his own in-goal and this should be a critical tackle, can he escape, can the opposition trap him in goal – and he just throws himself to the ground. I think it is against the spirit of a game based on tackling and escaping tackles. Enforcing this would make the game more entertaining and competitive in my view.

I think this is fair. Pryce has been named at full back for the Knights NSW Cup side tgis week and so if he goes well then I expect he will start to push for that NRL spot.

Well, I don't want to get caught up arguing with myself. I agree that incidents can be accidental and I thought last week's was accidental. But others argue that it was reckless and poor technique and so a foul as it ended up putting dangerous pressure on a player and causing injury. Here, the panel have concluded that it is not worthy of a ban - however it was poor technique and did put dangerous pressure on the tackled player. Maybe the difference is whether a player is injured or not, that was stressed as being at the heart of last week's case. I don't particularly like that as I think the action should be the issue, not the outcome.

Yes, I agree it is a different incident. But I would argue that if last week's incident was reckless then executing a tackle that results in a player landing on his head / neck is also reckless.

I don't mean to get into a long circular argument again but last week a player was banned for putting pressure on another player and yet here a player (and his team mates) is not charged for when the opponent is being tackled in the upper body by two of player’s team mate and is twisted round and lands on his neck and shoulder. Why is this not applying pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player?

Those stats for Smithies were from the Raiders match against the Titians in Round 6, not the Broncos game.

Is 2 assists in 5 matches really fantastic for a number 6?

The NSW Cup side getting best 52-6 doesn't exactly shout for any of them to be called up... but injuries may demand it. I looked at the Knights forum and mot many are calling for Pryce's call up - have you seen much of him in the Cup, is he playing OK?

What do you think the competition is for Pryce as back up #1? It was Lachlan Miller last year so we haven't seen many other Knights play full back and none of the first team seem a natural fit there. In NSW Cup Pryce has been playing 6 and David Armstrong 1, is there a chance the latter will get a nod for the NRL side over Pryce?

Like Sean Connery as Bond in Never Say Never Again, I just couldn't resist one more go around.

Which would certainly result in a 5 match ban due to an unnatural body position and unnecessary forceful contact.

Skolars are in the Southern Conference this year. I notice that Skolars lost to Eastern Rhinos 20-48 at home last week and today lost 68-8 away at Brentwood Eels. I'm not really posting this for any reason other than lamenting the current woes of a really forward thinking club. I hope they can get on an upward trend soon.

This is in the same category as if a tree falls with no-one to hear it... is a flounce a flounce if it has to be announced?

Thanks. The highlights started with the play the ball.

Just seen the try on the Sky site. Where was the knock on?

Same here. I'm OK with it as a spectacle but it does put into question the RFL's ability to impose these strict new guidelines if they are essentially ignored from the outset.

2 penalties for high shots in the first half. But they were the shots that would have been penalised last year. No penalties for the upright tackles we saw in the video from the RFL... as I say, the game looks exactly the same as last year.

Indeed. But I find the discussion interesting.

Fair enough. I can't remember injuring anyone but I remember being injured and none of them were fouls... but a couple of them certainly applied enough pressure to injure me. I never thought about whether they should have moderated their contact after in order to prevent the injury.

And do you think this incident falls into that description?

I am 5 minutes into watching the first game of the Southern Conference season (Wests Warriors vs. London Chargers). I can report the game looks no different to last year and about a dozen tackles which look like the one's described as now outlawed in the video at the start of this thread have been let go.

I agree with the last paragraph but I am not as comfortable as you seem to be with a catch all 'otherwise apply pressure'. Seems to me that describes every single tackle in Rugby League. I tell ya, it's the Rugby League deep state at work!

And just on this part - I am saying it was judged to be a foul, but as I think I have made clear, I don't agree with that judgement.

I will simplify my argument. The foul was applying pressure with his knee to the ankle of ISA. It is a charge which is a subset of the law "Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player." My view on the law above is that it was written to cover the deliberate twisting of a knee, ankle, arm of a player, a kind of cover all that isn't included in the chicken wing or other pressure fouls. It has been used here to charge a player for landing on top of another with his knee forcing pressure on the ankle. There was no other action that was illegal, just landing on a players ankle with his knee. My point is that any tackle where a player lands on another and causes injury can fall into this category. To put it even more simply - it is a foul because there was an injury (and the defender didn't prevent the injury), not a foul that caused an injury.