So you was close enough to know he was knocked out from 1 second to lets say 3/4 seconds. Thats how long it took to hit the deck. He was alert straight away when he hit the floor. So for that split second of taking the hit you know for a FACT he was out cold......yeah right.



=#FF0000I never said I knew for a fact how long he was out for, I was explaining to one of your other fans the difference between a concussion and being knocked out.

Watch the tape on Sky. Hardaker clearly was NOT unconscious. He went down, he turned, he put his hand to his head. One key trademark of being knocked out is that as a result of the 'out' part your independent movement stops.... his doesn't. Ergo, not knocked out. Concussed maybe, but not unconscious, not knocked out.

After watching the replay over and over and also looking at the still showing the initially point of contact i would say that rangi has gone in for a text book shoulder charge, hardaker has fallen forward and they have clashed heads. A similar incident for con mika resulted in the ruling 'players goes to make legitimate tackle and accidently makes contact with head' 'no further action' the only reason i can see that panel has charged him for is that leeds have kicked up such a stink they feel they have to do something.



Some leeds fans smarting from defeat may disagree but there are certain things we can say for without doubt, chase did not go in with the elbow as hardaker and a number of leeds fans all over the internet have stated. chases feet have not left the floor as stated by o'connor and a number of leeds fans. Hardaker was not knocked out as stated by the leeds coach.



Chase has aimed his shoulder at the chest of hardaker and hardaker as fallen into the tackle, had hardaker remained upright as he was when chase committed no contact would have been made, and there is no way that chase can pull out in the split second before hardaker falls into the tackle.



The club should fight this and if the disciplinary committee is fair there should be no ban.



One thing that has come out of this is that players should be told not to comment until the rfl has passed judgement on incidents such as this, it unfairly prejudices the case before its been reviewed. If you are allowed to claim you have been elbowed in the face, players have been knocked out etc when there no truth in it whats to stop players making things up about every tackle hoping to get the tackler cited?

A rational and excellent post...



Extending the point, what are the chances of a disrepute charge being brought against an individual who has clearly been disingenuous, seemingly in order to fuel the flames of suspicion against a fellow professional?

In fairness though, Nick Fozzard has also been all over Twitter, trying to defend Chase - that could be perceived as trying to influence the disciplinary outcome in exactly the way that is being condemned on here.



Unfortunately, the instant nature of modern communication, coupled with the lack of brainpower that is sometimes involved, means that there'll be indiscretions of this nature more and more often; as I've discovered in my own business, trying to stop it is like tilting at windmills. The genie is out of the bottle, so to speak.



I suspect that if Chase does get a ban, his previous conduct will be an aggravating factor and not many people could argue with that.

You do talk some drivel. Anyone would think it was going up in-front of a public Jury for them to decide.



The guys got form for this so he's going to have to explain himself. For me the video evidence was inconclusive.

Which is exactly why the outcome should be NFA - Video inconclusive.



But this is the RFL.

Fozz is on twitter IN RESPONSE to what are clearly erroneous claims made by some members of the Leeds set-up. I think there's a big difference there... they've initially talked bull**** to try to damn a player and Fozz has said "Er, hang on a minute!".



I see no comparison between the two - At best Fozz is only trying to influence the outcome back towards some modicum of impartiality after the media have already stung Rangi up on the strength of McDermotts and Hardaker's lies.

Sounds pretty accurate to me. Also consider the perfect position the referee was in to judge the impact, which was far better than that provided by the camera angle.



In relation to point d, if in fact Chase's elbow did hit Hardaker's chin, I'm not sure if he'd know that, had he actually been knocked out. Chase's elbows must be in an unusual place on his body too...

What is for certain, as this thread amply demonstrates, is that throughout the season, fans of a club will vociferously defend their own player for a challenge that, if it was inflicted on said player by someone from another team, would see them take to the streets with pitchforks.



If you get some perspective on the situation, you'll realise that Chase is being called in to answer questions about a challenge that resulted in injury, using the same rules that apply to every other player; he hasn't been found guilty yet and despite the ridiculous anti-Cas conspiracy theories, or Gronk QC whipping up wrongheaded hysteria about prejudicial hearings, it's a reasonably robust system for handling disciplinary matters.



As for the jeering at Hardaker for being soft, that just shows a lack of class.

Zak iis not soft by any means and it would be a foolish and a wee bit cowardly to imply that on a forum.



Would say more about you than him.

Did it result in injury B2K ?