Reds v Pasifika, Suncorp Stadium, Friday 20 May,

[Tomikin]

Head and shoulder at the same time for me.

I think the question needs to change from intention, force, point of contact etc to could he have been paralysed from the tackle, in this case yes and a red card.

While ever we have the farcical 20 minute red card rule we should be using them.

I guess the ref thought that was a no cos he hit his shoulder first.

Not my place to say, I thought yellow was fair and didn't think much more of it till I saw people complaining on here..

I'm just trusting my first instinct which was yellow.. I guess if I rewatch it and get into the Nitty gritty I could possibly find a red.

 

[liquor box]

I guess the ref thought that was a no cos he hit his shoulder first.

Not my place to say, I thought yellow was fair and didn't think much more of it till I saw people complaining on here..

I'm just trusting my first instinct which was yellow.. I guess if I rewatch it and get into the Nitty gritty I could possibly find a red.

At first I also thought Yellow, the replay made it look like a red to me, just like I thought it would have looked like a red to the video ref.

 

[Adam84]

If we’re assessing based on what’s likely to cause a serious injury, and the current stance on ‘head contact/red card’ is the baseline, then that tackle is a red card…

Tackler demonstrated poor technique, he didn’t drive him into the ground but he tipped him beyond horizontal. Tip tackling a player so they’re landing anywhere around their neck/head region with weight coming down, should be a straight red. That’s how spinal injuries occur, not to mention concussions.

 

[liquor box]

If we’re assessing based on what’s likely to cause a serious injury, and the current stance on ‘head contact/red card’ is the baseline, then that tackle is a red card…

Tackler demonstrated poor technique, he didn’t drive him into the ground but he tipped him beyond horizontal. Tip tackling a player so they landing on anywhere around their neck/head region should with weight coming down on top should be a straight red. That’s how spinal injuries occur, not to mention concussions.

I don't think that is how they are actually assessed, I think they should be.

That being said, there are plenty of potentially dangerous contacts in every game but I think tip tackles are possibly the worst, even more so that a shoulder charge to the head. I am far from being a doctor but I thought compression of the spine ie from a tip tackle is potentially worse than a concussion. Don't get me wrong CTE is a massive concern, but I would probably prefer CTE and walk than be in a wheelchair. I dont think mitigation should be a factor

 

[Adam84]

I don't think that is how they are actually assessed, I think they should be.

That being said, there are plenty of potentially dangerous contacts in every game but I think tip tackles are possibly the worst, even more so that a shoulder charge to the head. I am far from being a doctor but I thought compression of the spine ie from a tip tackle is potentially worse than a concussion. Don't get me wrong CTE is a massive concern, but I would probably prefer CTE and walk than be in a wheelchair. I dont think mitigation should be a factor

no you’re right it’s assessed on how the rules are written, which don’t necessarily reflect the scale of potential serious injury. My comment was they should be.

If the red card crack down on head contact is designed to punish poor technique which can cause injury, then tip tackles where a player lands anywhere near their neck/head should absolutely be in the same category.

 

[DELETE ACCOUNT]

why is it that the outcome dictates the severity of the sanction?
IMHO, it should be the offence gets a set sanction regardless of the outcome . For example a swinging arm head shot that causes concussion would be treated the same as swinging arm head shot that doesn't cause concussion. Both are "foul play" contrary to the rules.