3
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
You know what annoys me, everyone is saying banks had to tackle like that to save a try, and the pulu moved into it.
No one ever says well done force for getting into the position that the only way to stop it was to risk a headbutt. They only complain that he had no other choice.
The facts are, decision was made to go high into a tackle. It cause head on head contact. It broke a cheek bone, and AFAIK pulu went off with HIA.
That my friends is the reason it is a red card everyday. Protecting the players AND their long term health.
And he should get a couple of weeks to go with it (even though it would make no difference due to his injury).
Note: I wish banks all the best, nice enough bloke from all accounts.
I also found it difficult to fathom that Tupou was not sanctioned for that "clean-out" a couple of weeks ago. Similar arguments saying he "had no choice"; "couldn't go any lower" don't hold water. Whilst the second has some truth he still had the choice not to tuck his arm and lead with a shoulder to the head.
My thoughts around these two and other incidents, remains that more deliberate foul play should revert to a "remainder of match" sanction. I don't know how many here watch any RL at all; but there was an incident of a deliberate cocked elbow to the head on the weekend. It left the injured player unable to continue & prompted an immediate send-off. That left his team a man short for the remaining 50-odd minutes. But it left the opposition one bench player short too. He's copped 6 weeks - and I think that's lenient. And allowing a replacement after 20 mins would be ludicrous.
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
Rugby League, where most sanctions sound like:
Well you murdered him and then drove to his house and killed all his family, it’s on report and a penalty to Parramatta.
The Tupou incident is a clearer example of the point I want to make so I'm gonna use that.
He didn't have a choice, what else could he do and all those other statements are pointless obfuscation.
The "else" he could do is concede the ruck is lost and prepare to challenge the ball carrier. Players do it all the time, late to the ruck, plenty of people standing over the ball protecting it, join the line and prepare to make a dominant tackle. Yes counter ruck is always an option, but that doesn't mean it's an option that you're obligated to take. Simply don't take the option and prepare to deal with the outcome better.
Yes the Banks tackle is harder to argue that he could completely pull out of the play like that, but there are still a number of options that Banks either deliberately or subconsciously rejected. The ball was on his side, since Pulu had just dealt with Muirhead and hadn't had time to transfer it away, so a heavy tackle under the ribs would have a high chance of knocking the ball loose, if that tackle is strong enough, there might have been a chance of knocking Pulu into touch, or he could have played to get hands on the ball and attempt to hold it up.
His approach clearly indicates that none of these options were going to be taken, he was going for an upright ball n all tackle with enough force to unsettle Pulu. A perfectly reasonable decision until the risks associated with it catch up to you and you put two players on a stretcher.
C'mon the![]()
![]()
The Will Smith incident has been investigated and he has been exonerated because he only intended to kick Chris Rock in the groin.