Re: MICKY MAC : Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:42 pm  

Wire Yed wrote:

I hate the 3rd man tackle to the lower leg and wince whenever it is done even if it's Wire, I hate it.

It can be career ending, please see sense SL and get it banned, until then I won't moan at anyone particular as it isn't illegal.
I still think it's a cowardly tackle and unfortunately I've seen McIllorum use it way too much.

I can deal with all the other rough stuff as it's usually fair and at least with biff you have the chance to throw back.

Don't disagree with you Yed on the knee tackle per se but I think we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves here. The tackle to the legs is fine as long as it's to the back of the knees. There is no more chance of injury from this particular tackle than any other part of the game. We, as a RL community, are too often in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and I think this is another case in point. Tackling around the legs is fine. It remains fine as long as there is no specific danger to the players. Our game shouldn't be watered down any more than is absolutely necessary to protect players.

As an aside to this, I watched both MM incidents again yesterday as I'd only seen them at the game and was surprised by some of the vitriol being spouted on these boards. At the game I'd seen little more than a tough, uncompromising game of Rugby League; in fact the very type of game that first attracted me to the sport. I've watched it again and I was absolutely right. There was nothing in either incident that I hadn't seen thousands of times and, in fact, MM's 'incidents' were totally unremarkable. A slightly late check tackle and a tackle to the back of the legs! I was totally bemused by the reaction (other than it being pantomime villain McIlorum, of course!). As I've said over on your board, had it been any other player I doubt it would have warranted so much as a mention!

Re: MICKY MAC : Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:32 am  

Wire Yed wrote:

and the 3rd man in knee attack isn't illegal on this side of the world.

Mickey Paea got a 2 match ban for doing it against Castleford. Not even a penalty was awarded on the pitch at the time.

Re: MICKY MAC : Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:48 am  

[quote="Wire Yed"]He's done nothing to be cited for, late tackle, silly throw on Higham are hardly things you should have to go to Red Hall for, and the 3rd man in knee attack isn't illegal on this side of the world.

Can't see why there should be a meltdown?[/quote]


Because not everyone on these forums has an 'unbiased' view like you.

Re: MICKY MAC : Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:44 pm  

Hasbag wrote:

Mickey Paea got a 2 match ban for doing it against Castleford. Not even a penalty was awarded on the pitch at the time.

he should have appealed as its not against the rules

Re: MICKY MAC : Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:15 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

Don't disagree with you Yed on the knee tackle per se but I think we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves here. The tackle to the legs is fine as long as it's to the back of the knees. There is no more chance of injury from this particular tackle than any other part of the game. We, as a RL community, are too often in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and I think this is another case in point. Tackling around the legs is fine. It remains fine as long as there is no specific danger to the players. Our game shouldn't be watered down any more than is absolutely necessary to protect players.

As an aside to this, I watched both MM incidents again yesterday as I'd only seen them at the game and was surprised by some of the vitriol being spouted on these boards. At the game I'd seen little more than a tough, uncompromising game of Rugby League; in fact the very type of game that first attracted me to the sport. I've watched it again and I was absolutely right. There was nothing in either incident that I hadn't seen thousands of times and, in fact, MM's 'incidents' were totally unremarkable. A slightly late check tackle and a tackle to the back of the legs! I was totally bemused by the reaction (other than it being pantomime villain McIlorum, of course!). As I've said over on your board, had it been any other player I doubt it would have warranted so much as a mention!

Tackling around the legs is and always will be fine as long as its a standard tackle. When its not fine to me is when the attacker has been stopped usually by 2 defenders and the 3rd man is just there to injure by putting pressure on the knees or ankle joints. And as for your mm's late tackle from behind as being called a late check tackle is remarkable. He 's not the sharpest tool in the box but one thing he knows about is slyness on a rugby league field. He has every cheap shot in the book .Maybe got it off his dad mr newton

Re: MICKY MAC : Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:50 pm  

Or maybe Sonny Knuckle!

Re: MICKY MAC : Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:18 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

Don't disagree with you Yed on the knee tackle per se but I think we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves here. The tackle to the legs is fine as long as it's to the back of the knees. There is no more chance of injury from this particular tackle than any other part of the game. We, as a RL community, are too often in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and I think this is another case in point. Tackling around the legs is fine. It remains fine as long as there is no specific danger to the players. Our game shouldn't be watered down any more than is absolutely necessary to protect players.

As an aside to this, I watched both MM incidents again yesterday as I'd only seen them at the game and was surprised by some of the vitriol being spouted on these boards. At the game I'd seen little more than a tough, uncompromising game of Rugby League; in fact the very type of game that first attracted me to the sport. I've watched it again and I was absolutely right. There was nothing in either incident that I hadn't seen thousands of times and, in fact, MM's 'incidents' were totally unremarkable. A slightly late check tackle and a tackle to the back of the legs! I was totally bemused by the reaction (other than it being pantomime villain McIlorum, of course!). As I've said over on your board, had it been any other player I doubt it would have warranted so much as a mention!

Spot on. Similarly, whilst a spear tackle should be illegal what is wrong with a player's legs being lifted above the horizontal if he is lowered back to the ground? Also, if a guy is 3 foot off the ground catching the ball and gets cartwheeled in a tackle that should obviously be penalised. Is it really dangerous play if you tackle someone just a fraction early when he is literally inches off the ground? As you say, the baby is being thrown out with the bath water.

Re: MICKY MAC : Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:20 pm  

Father Ted wrote:

Or maybe Sonny Knuckle!

Hey im no saint.. But in todays game we are trying to expand the great game and reach other areas that previously we haven't been able to tap into . With summer rugby moving into the junior element we can finally try to tap into the kids who play football and to a lesser extent RU. We have stamped out the fighting to a degree but the cheap shots have to be stamped out. Its a hard game without those .I know

Re: MICKY MAC : Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:34 am  

saintnickle34 wrote:

Tackling around the legs is and always will be fine as long as its a standard tackle. When its not fine to me is when the attacker has been stopped usually by 2 defenders and the 3rd man is just there to injure by putting pressure on the knees or ankle joints. And as for your mm's late tackle from behind as being called a late check tackle is remarkable. He 's not the sharpest tool in the box but one thing he knows about is slyness on a rugby league field. He has every cheap shot in the book .Maybe got it off his dad mr newton

First up, it was side on and not from behind. Secondly it was a check tackle because the point of impact was with the body, not the shoulder. It also wasn't high. It wasn't even THAT late for God's sake! It was a penalty, nothing more. However I know you have an agenda. I've seen your anti-Wigan ravings over on the Saints boards many times so I'm not particularly sure what you're expecting as a response as I already know full well you aren't after a rational debate. Incidentally, if you're so against the 'third man in' tackle, might I suggest you write to your own club and ask them to stop doing it, along with the other 13 clubs in Superleague.

As for the 'his dad mr newton' (sic) quote; really? I mean....really?

Re: MICKY MAC : Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:04 am  

Phuzzy wrote:

First up, it was side on and not from behind. Secondly it was a check tackle because the point of impact was with the body, not the shoulder. It also wasn't high. It wasn't even THAT late for God's sake! It was a penalty, nothing more. However I know you have an agenda. I've seen your anti-Wigan ravings over on the Saints boards many times so I'm not particularly sure what you're expecting as a response as I already know full well you aren't after a rational debate. Incidentally, if you're so against the 'third man in' tackle, might I suggest you write to your own club and ask them to stop doing it, along with the other 13 clubs in Superleague.

As for the 'his dad mr newton' (sic) quote; really? I mean....really?

I saw a Saints fan on their board say he/she couldn't believe Walmsley was potentially going to be banned for up to three games when there was many worse incidents in the Wigan/Wire game!

As much as I didn't quite think the Walmsley tackle was as bad as being made out you couldn't make s*it like that up!