Page 8 of 10
Re: Our fate was sealed la...
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:24 am
by turf
You know what Stevo says, "frame by frame"
Just thought I would include that little comment.
Re: Our fate was sealed la...
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:23 am
by robjoenz
cpwigan posted:
Rob thanks for putting those freeze frames pics up. I actually think they are more dammning than when I watched it on video. My initial impression was that he had kept his arm tighter to his body. On a serious point watch any Adrian Morley big hit. Every one is illegal IMO.
Pat had broke away from one tackler but was still held by Flannery. KC comes from the left to the right, he is facing the full exposed open side of Pat. So he has a huge target area. as he gets close according to your frames, his arm is getting further and further away from his body and all the time the fist is clenched. Despite being open he makes no attempt to go for the ball. Instead he misses it completely whilst fully balanced and connects spot on with Richards head.
Each frame is 1/27th of a second remember! From the first to last frame I posted there is 0.22 seconds. Cunningham's arm moves from inline with Richards body to contacting his head in 0.22 seconds. What are human reaction times?
My understanding of coaching methods would suggest logic says 2 things. The first is that players are taught to hold up ball carriers. 'Dance' with them. This actually gains the defensive side valuable time to regroup for the next tackle. The other would be to smother the ball and to do so you would be passive because flannery was taking Pat down anyway.
KCs only defence is that Richards fell to one knee
Wouldn't your understanding of coaching techniques suggest that the two Saints players would keep Richards on his feet then in this instance? In which case Cunningham would have expected him to stay on his feet? Saints are usually very good at wrestling in defence to put the player in the most awkward, yet legal, position possible.
Re: Our fate was sealed la...
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:47 am
by cpwigan
In such circumstances rob, you would not have a clenched fist and when you wrestle you use 2 hands and would get under Richards to keep him up.
The approach KC used, he may well have been Kerry Gibson.
Re: Our fate was sealed la...
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:58 pm
by Matthew
I see KFC will be pleading his case at Red Hall tomorrow - has he asked you to be there in his defence Rob?
http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... elens.html
From the fact that Pat was knocked out; I think that we can all agree that KFC made contact with Richards' head during the "challenge".
So had he broken Pat's cheek/jaw during the challenge - would he have deserved a ban Rob?
Re: Our fate was sealed la...
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:45 pm
by GeoffN
Matthew posted:
I see KFC will be pleading his case at Red Hall tomorrow - has he asked you to be there in his defence Rob?
http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... elens.html
From the fact that Pat was knocked out; I think that we can all agree that KFC made contact with Richards' head during the "challenge".
So had he broken Pat's cheek/jaw during the challenge - would he have deserved a ban Rob?
Depends which part of his arm made contact. I still think it was shoulder/upper arm, which is legal.
I'll be surprised if he gets banned.
Re: Our fate was sealed la...
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:43 pm
by Likely_Lad
GeoffN posted:
Matthew posted:
I see KFC will be pleading his case at Red Hall tomorrow - has he asked you to be there in his defence Rob?
http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... elens.html
From the fact that Pat was knocked out; I think that we can all agree that KFC made contact with Richards' head during the "challenge".
So had he broken Pat's cheek/jaw during the challenge - would he have deserved a ban Rob?
Depends which part of his arm made contact. I still think it was shoulder/upper arm, which is legal.
I'll be surprised if he gets banned.
GeoffN it isnt't legal to thrust your shoulder/upper arm into an opponents head. Not sure where you've got that from. :conf:
Rob, I'm not trying to patronise you but have you ever played a game of Rugby League? Anyone who has has been in the position of KC and I will openly admit I've gone in before as KC did and attempted to make contact with my opponents head. Similarly I have been on the receiving end of 1 or 2 aswell. I accept that it happens and there's no point in pretending is doesn't.
Re: Our fate was sealed la...
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:07 pm
by Matthew
GeoffN posted:
Depends which part of his arm made contact. I still think it was shoulder/upper arm, which is legal.
I'll be surprised if he gets banned.
Attacking the head with any part of the body is illegal (or so it was my understanding) - otherwise players would do it regularly.
The point that I am trying to make is that it doesn't really matter which part of his body KFC hit Richards with (it could have been his great fat a$%e for the difference it makes) he knocked him out. If you make contact with someones head with enough force to render them unconscious - then there is a decent chance that you will cause them some damage.
Put it another way - had Newton not caused any damage to long's ugly mug with his elbow do you think that he would have still been banned? - of course he would (although the ban would have almost certainly been shorter)
Re: Our fate was sealed la...
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:11 am
by GeoffN
Likely_Lad posted:
GeoffN it isnt't legal to thrust your shoulder/upper arm into an opponents head. Not sure where you've got that from. :conf:
Here's the verdict from one of last week's disciplinary hearings:
Player: Gary Ellery (Featherstone Rovers Senior Academy)
Opponents: Keighley Cougars
Referee: R Everitt
Adjudication: Having viewed the DVD and listened to player Ellery’s explanations, the Committee felt that the tackle made by player Ellery was with the shoulder to the opponent and not with the elbow or forearm. The Committee was satisfied that player Ellery was not guilty of misconduct.
http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/index.php ... &areaid=44
Re: Our fate was sealed la...
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:20 am
by butt monkey
GeoffN posted:
Likely_Lad posted:
GeoffN it isnt't legal to thrust your shoulder/upper arm into an opponents head. Not sure where you've got that from. :conf:
Here's the verdict from one of last week's disciplinary hearings:
Player: Gary Ellery (Featherstone Rovers Senior Academy)
Opponents: Keighley Cougars
Referee: R Everitt
Adjudication: Having viewed the DVD and listened to player Ellery’s explanations, the Committee felt that the tackle made by player Ellery was with the shoulder to the opponent and not with the elbow or forearm. The Committee was satisfied that player Ellery was not guilty of misconduct.
http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/index.php ... &areaid=44
Well we are alright there Geoff, because it definitely wasn't KC's shoulder that came into contact with Pat Richard's head.
As for Robjoenz' excuses that there was no (or little) intent, they look pretty thin, now that KC has been (quite rightly) ordered to appear before Red Hall - charged with "striking". Obviously there has to have been some degree of concern in this "tackle" in order for the RFL to merit an interuption in training for St Helens, and a possible suspension for the Challenge Cup Semi Final for one of their key players.
Re: Our fate was sealed la...
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:40 am
by GeoffN
butt monkey posted:
Well we are alright there Geoff, because it definitely wasn't KC's shoulder that came into contact with Pat Richard's head.
But it wasn't his elbow or forearm either, which is what they look for.
I want him banned as much as everyone else (simply because of who it is) but I can see why they probably won't.