Well said.EagleEyePie wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 8:24 amA whiplash effect from a legal tackle isn't a red, only whiplash from an illegal tackle is. The very fact that there's a whiplash mechanism is proof that the tackle can't have been direct contact the head.fozzieskem wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 8:13 amNo they haven't the past players are suing the game and all they're trying to do is put the house in order,the whiplash alone was a red.
Lewis runs with his head tilted back, the head then snaps forward in contact and goes backwards after impact. His head can't physically snap forward if the initial contact is with the head. That's impossible. There's no reason for the head to snap forward in that manner due to anything other than an impact. It is literally physically impossible for it to be direct contact with the head, the impact must have come before and have been below the head for his head to move in that way.
It's very similar to the tackle that Ethan Havard got sin binned for against Huddersfield. There was secondary contact due to the player falling but initial contact was with the ball/chest.
But don't forget, some people on here and in the RL hierarchy seem to think that players must have no intent to hurt the opposition, just be jolly good sports.