Rotten luck for Ennis, deserved ban for Luke

Twins clowns, tinfoil hat TMF and special only child Lachlan, deny reality, deny the video of the hands between the legs, and to top it off know better than the judiciary. Conspiracy 'twins', the judiciary is fixed! Really! If that was the case, clowns, the NRL would be dragged to the Supreme Court, and lose. Just grow up - it is childish to deny facts, to think it is tough to wet yourself in excitement when seeing dangerous violence and to unashamedly lie when confronted with facts.

Well it's a start Peter. It's taken you a week and a half but you've finally got around to watching the tackle. It's a pity you don't understand it but Rome wasn't built in a day. As everyone can see (well, not you but I'm not qualified to diagnose your problems), Luke's arms are around SBW's waist, then slip down to his upper thighs. He did not "put his hands between SBW’s legs" as you claimed. I don't need to call you a liar. You have provided all the proof needed that you're a fool. But you really should be a man and apologise.

Wow Peter. Not many people come up with theory and then provide the evidence themselves to bury it. Firstly the spear is the driving action, it has nothing to do with the lifting. Clearly there is no driving action is this tackle. Secondly, you have provided a youtube link that clearly show that Luke setting, performing a textbook head to the right hip arms around the waist tackle. As $BW's momentum carries him over Luke's shoulder hims hands slip down a bit tho the upper thighs. At no time does he change his grip to place an arm between $BW's legs. What you are seeing is Luke's right hand gripping $BW's leg from around the outside of his leg. As for being a judiciary advocate... no one would have gotten a different verdict. they had their minds made up before he went in. NRL's laws and the application of them through the reporting and judicial system over the past 6 years are in such a decline that we are now spirally out of control. When text book around the waste tackles can get you suspended we have reached a crisis point. The NRL needs to reign it in or we will find that the code will become OZTAG before the end of the decade.

Lachlan, you are a fantasist at best and a li@r at worst. I'm going for the latter myself. What is on SBW's inner thigh, clown? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuVomlp5hTw But, hey, the video must be wrong (I edited it like the Zapruder film); the match review committee must be wrong; the NRL judiciary must be wrong - and you must be right.

Peter, Are Luke's arms between Williams' legs as you keep claiming, or are they around the outside? Be a man - admit you have been very silly and apologise.

Cooper, that is the first time you have made that particular point. You must be fascinating having a pub debate with. In answer to your new point; it doesn't matter whether it was intentional or reckless, it was a breach. Do you really suggest that players should get off by saying 'I didn't mean it'?

Lachlan, your arrogance is unspeakable. I have watched the video many times prior to your urging. I invite others to do so to see what a clown you are. If you believe that he was not guilty, you should offer yourself as an judiciary advocate and earn a million. Because apparently the best advocates could not get him off.

Peter, I can't believe you've replied and still haven't bothered to watch the video. Go and do it now. When you do, you'll notice that Luke's arms are around the outside of SBW's legs in a copybook tackle. They are not between his legs, which has always be a major factor in determining culpability in these cases. If you're seriously suggesting that Luke is guilty because his arms continue all the way until his hands and some part of his hands made contact with the inside of Willliams' thighs then you must accept that 100% of tackles around the legs will need to be made illegal. How silly.

You're a sensitive one aren't you champ. The point I was making was that things happen so quickly and you have made this out to be a deliberate act. Accidents can happen on the footy field and this was clearly one of those.

No-one who steps on a football consents to being driven head first into the ground. The judiciary look 11 minutes to find Luke guilty. You must know better, huh? You should have appeared for him, genius.

Gutless violence. Seriously? You must watch all the games in super slo motion do you peter because that is the only way you could come to these bizarre findings.

Lachlan, watch the actual video, not the one playing in your head. If they aren't Luke's hands between SBW's legs, we had a ghost on the field. How can you judge 'malice' by the way - with a 'malicometer'? The judiciary took 11 minutes to find him guilty, and I think 10 of those minutes were padding.

I'm bemused that people like Peter comment without ever watching the game, let alone the tackle in question. He says "Luke knew exactly what he was doing when he put his hands between SBW’s legs". Luke did no such thing. Anyone who actually saw the incident in question knows that. I think Luke was harshly treated. There was no malice in the tackle at all, but irregardless, why bother to post a comment without ever watching the incident you're talking about?

Mindless agitation. Issac Luke performed a text book around the waist driving up tackle. Head to one side of the hip.... what followed was $BW having enough momentum to drive through the strength of Luke's tackle.... unfortunately that momentum took him up over Luke's shoulder and resulted in $BW going over a vertical. $BW himself realized want was happening and had enough time to brace with his elbow. When a text book tackle goes wrong, the last thing the NRL should be doing is punishing players. We have enough morons in the peanut gallery to do that....

You can call it a dangerous throw, as per the judiary finding, you can call it a spear tackle, or you can call it gutless violence. The point is it is totally unacceptable, and Luke was rightly punished.

It was not a spear tackle. Need to get that straight first.

Yep agree Davey, I think if you want to have credibility about tackles and if we are all worried about the damage a tackle can do, then you have to consider all tackles. Using the McKinnon tackle by itself is ludicrous, what about the life threatening tackle on Jake friend or the repeated concussions by high shots. What are you really saying Mr Lord? I suspect that all tackling that may hurt someone should be banned is what your really saying. Helmets please, no lifting, No touching above shoulders. Bring on touch football. Funny if you ask the players they liked it more even before we banned the shoulder charge.

Take JWH for example, if you take up everything he did in the Roosters vs Souths game into 1 highlights reel and compare it to Luke's and could only select 1 player to miss out, you'd be biased not to pick JWH. A series of deliberate actions and constant offences vs 1 accident is a different scenario. Not saying Luke should get off, keeping in mind 1 tackle that was over in a second against a bigger opponent (and thus he had to try a lot harder), vs a constant breaking off the rules, yet JWH would be playing in a grand final meanwhile Luke misses out on arguably the biggest game he'd ever have in his career.

Gee, little man on big man, could go wrong but keep on kicking him, bet he'll be sorry then Churlish you people, churlish

All this emotive and emotional argument would be solved immediately if the correspondents just bothered to read the rule surrounding this type of tackle. For instance, there is no such thing as a "Spear" tackle except in the eye of the viewer. Luke broke the rule and was punished accordingly. Get over it, it's a stupid pointless argument.