Tweet
Opinion seems to be split not just amongst Roosters fans but Rugby League fans in general as to how bad JWH's hit actually was. I want to compare it to a precedent set in Round 1 against us by Sam Burgess on Mitchell Pearce.
There's three important factors to consider when comparing these head high tackles 1) force 2) where contact is made; 3) what position the attacker was in when contact was made.
Here's the videos for those who need a reminder;
Sam Burgess hit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcQhAONaPxQ
JWH hit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_AARZko4t8
So lets consider the factors at play;
1) Force
The force in both tackles was very high, that's evident in the videos. Both were very clean, flush hits. You know it's serious if Pearce stays on the ground and whilst George Rose managed to get up there's no doubt JWH caught him fair and square.
2) Contact
Contact is clearly made straight to the head of the attacking player in both instances. More of interest though is the contact of the defender, in both instances contact is made high up on the arm between the bicep and shoulder. This suggests that the intention of the defender was to make contact with chest with the arm wrapping around, neither were your traditional swinging arm high tackles.
This is arguably the most crucial part because Sam Burgess was given a 'careless' charge whilst JWH was given a 'reckless' charge despite both tackles clearly being poorly timed rather than with poor intentions.
3) Position of the attacking player
This is the one point that really hasn't got much of a mention in the public. Those who look at the Burgess shot can quite clearly see that Mitchell Pearce is falling into the tackle and there's no way Sam Burgess could have reacted to that, it's just unfortunate.
However there's been very little mention of the fact that George Rose was also falling into the tackle, the camera shots during the Foxsports coverage do Hargreaves no favours because all the slow mo's are of close up shots compared to the Pearce video where we get a long shot of his whole body which quite clearly shows him lowering his centre of gravity before passing. However in the last angle we were shown on the broadcast it quite clearly shows George Rose fell into the tackle, here's a still frame that shows it best;
His knees are quite clearly bent and very low at that, this doesn't excuse a high shot as it's still the responsibility of the defender not to make high contact with the attacker but it certainly backs up the claim further that JWH's tackle should have been cited as 'careless' and not 'reckless' by the match review committee.
In isolation these tackles are very similar however there's little doubt that the fact JWH's came on the back of a drop out makes it all the more dramatic and inevitably played a large role in what was and unprecedented sending off based on the recent rulings in the past few years.
If Sam Burgess had no carry over points from a prior incident he would have been free to play the next week, how one gets a Careless Grade 1 charge and the other a reckless grade 1 charge I'm not sure. In isolation the factors at play and tackles are quite similar.
There's three important factors to consider when comparing these head high tackles 1) force 2) where contact is made; 3) what position the attacker was in when contact was made.
Here's the videos for those who need a reminder;
Sam Burgess hit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcQhAONaPxQ
JWH hit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_AARZko4t8
So lets consider the factors at play;
1) Force
The force in both tackles was very high, that's evident in the videos. Both were very clean, flush hits. You know it's serious if Pearce stays on the ground and whilst George Rose managed to get up there's no doubt JWH caught him fair and square.
2) Contact
Contact is clearly made straight to the head of the attacking player in both instances. More of interest though is the contact of the defender, in both instances contact is made high up on the arm between the bicep and shoulder. This suggests that the intention of the defender was to make contact with chest with the arm wrapping around, neither were your traditional swinging arm high tackles.
This is arguably the most crucial part because Sam Burgess was given a 'careless' charge whilst JWH was given a 'reckless' charge despite both tackles clearly being poorly timed rather than with poor intentions.
3) Position of the attacking player
This is the one point that really hasn't got much of a mention in the public. Those who look at the Burgess shot can quite clearly see that Mitchell Pearce is falling into the tackle and there's no way Sam Burgess could have reacted to that, it's just unfortunate.
However there's been very little mention of the fact that George Rose was also falling into the tackle, the camera shots during the Foxsports coverage do Hargreaves no favours because all the slow mo's are of close up shots compared to the Pearce video where we get a long shot of his whole body which quite clearly shows him lowering his centre of gravity before passing. However in the last angle we were shown on the broadcast it quite clearly shows George Rose fell into the tackle, here's a still frame that shows it best;
His knees are quite clearly bent and very low at that, this doesn't excuse a high shot as it's still the responsibility of the defender not to make high contact with the attacker but it certainly backs up the claim further that JWH's tackle should have been cited as 'careless' and not 'reckless' by the match review committee.
In isolation these tackles are very similar however there's little doubt that the fact JWH's came on the back of a drop out makes it all the more dramatic and inevitably played a large role in what was and unprecedented sending off based on the recent rulings in the past few years.
If Sam Burgess had no carry over points from a prior incident he would have been free to play the next week, how one gets a Careless Grade 1 charge and the other a reckless grade 1 charge I'm not sure. In isolation the factors at play and tackles are quite similar.
Comment