1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why is it.....

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by tugga8, May 5, 2013.

  1. tugga8

    tugga8 Member

    +17 /0
    Before I start this, let me just say, I love a "blue" in a game of rugby league.
    Can some explain to me that a tackle like Matai's last week or any other where a tackler makes contact with the head is charged for "attacking the head of an opponent". This is whether it is accidental or deemed deliberate. BUT a player can come in and intentionally punch someone in the head and it is not treated the same way. There is no more obvious example of "attacking the head of an opponent" than throwing a punch. At worst they get binned for being 3rd man in??????
  2. eagleE

    eagleE Active Member

    +92 /0
    Very good point tugga.
  3. mickqld

    mickqld Sack Greenslime 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +5,250 /109
    It depends. if the guy getting punched has a maroon and white jumper on its ok. If the guy doing the punching has a maroon and white jumper then it's penalty, sin bin and on report.
  4. Jatz Crackers

    Jatz Crackers Moderator Staff Member

    +1,476 /8
    I would very much like to see what answer Rothfield would come up with to the good question posed by tugga8.

    No offense to you tugga8, but I do believe Rothfield is more of a professional tugga.
  5. Clint

    Clint . Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +2,173 /34
    Haha. Nice one Jatz. ;) Never a truer word spoken.
  6. The Eagle Has Landed

    The Eagle Has Landed Well-Known Member

    +485 /8
    Everyone loves a good dust up women, kids the fellas everyone loves it.
    I know when I see one I'm like yeah how goods this.
    And the next day men and women love it except when it's at The Cross at 3am in the morning.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Daddycool

      Daddycool Well-Known Member

      +297 /2
      I think it's because a tackle is part of what's considered "normal play", so if contact with the head is made in that context, it will be deemed "attacking the head of an opponent". However, fighting isn't part of normal play and falls under a different set of circumstances (most likely foul play) and therefore is adjudicated on differently.

      Having said all of that though, you make a very good point.
    • Jatz Crackers

      Jatz Crackers Moderator Staff Member

      +1,476 /8
      Seems to me that tugg8s question is valid. The charge of "attacking the head" should be reserved for the act of striking while in the act of foul play ie fighting.

      Matais' tackle at worst should have been "accidental contact"

    Share This Page