54 replies to this topic

[my missus]

coley got a 2 match ban today, seems a bit harsh to me, and will now miss the wire game, meanwhile micky higham breaks thumb and will be out for a month, players seem to be dropping like flies at the mo'.

[Old Frightful]

coley got a 2 match ban today, seems a bit harsh to me, and will now miss the wire game, meanwhile micky higham breaks thumb and will be out for a month, players seem to be dropping like flies at the mo'.

Sorry mate, struggling with the relevance tbh.

[Dave T]

coley got a 2 match ban today, seems a bit harsh to me, and will now miss the wire game, meanwhile micky higham breaks thumb and will be out for a month, players seem to be dropping like flies at the mo'.

I think 2 matches is about right. I thought it was quite a bad high tackle. Nothing too OTT, but the player went down like a sack of $hit. There was also no need for it as it was from a slow tap penalty so Coley wasn't even wrong footed.

I wouldn't be surprised to see an appeal to get him back for the semi but IMHO 2 is fine.

No doubt we will simply get a load of posts where people say 'I don't mind him getting a ban, as long as there is consistency!'.

The funny thing with consistency is that on the Wigan board there are a few fans being hysterical saying that the ref brought the game into disrepute with the farcical decision to red card him, whereas other Wigan fans are saying it was the right decision!

[ckn]

Sorry mate, struggling with the relevance tbh.

I think he means that some clubs are getting close to having "triallist" on their match cards!

[my missus]

I wouldn't be surprised to see an appeal to get him back for the semi but IMHO 2 is fine.
what semi?

[my missus]

I think he means that some clubs are getting close to having "triallist" on their match cards!

correct, there just seems to be a few players picking up injuries lately, higham, eastmond, mcllorum,pryce (both) and any number of leeds players.

[Dave T]

I wouldn't be surprised to see an appeal to get him back for the semi but IMHO 2 is fine.
what semi?

Sorry, meant the Wigan v Wire game. At the same time I was also reading that Higham will miss the semi final!!!

[giwildgo]

Seems to be a bit excessive in comparison to the consideration by the disciplinary of other mistimed high tackles in the last couple of seasons. A sending off and one match would have been about par.

[Dave T]

Seems to be a bit excessive in comparison to the consideration by the disciplinary of other mistimed high tackles in the last couple of seasons. A sending off and one match would have been about par.

Not sure I agree tbh. 1 match would generally be for careless, whereas this was classed as reckless. The write-up on the RFL website has it spot on IMHO (including the fact that Coley pleads guilty - although I don't buy his account as a 100% accurate representation).

As is pointed out, the tackler was in control, and it wasn't a mis-timed tackle, he had the whole body to go at, and he got it wrong. The fact that the player was injured showed how much force he put into it (considering it wasn't a massive swinging arm - it was just very solid to the head).

The main thing I was disappointed with over this was Coley's reaction when he got the Red card, but then he does have a habit of appealing even when he has given a blatant penalty anyway...

[my missus]

Not sure I agree tbh. 1 match would generally be for careless, whereas this was classed as reckless. The write-up on the RFL website has it spot on IMHO (including the fact that Coley pleads guilty - although I don't buy his account as a 100% accurate representation).

As is pointed out, the tackler was in control, and it wasn't a mis-timed tackle, he had the whole body to go at, and he got it wrong. The fact that the player was injured showed how much force he put into it (considering it wasn't a massive swinging arm - it was just very solid to the head).

The main thing I was disappointed with over this was Coley's reaction when he got the Red card, but then he does have a habit of appealing even when he has given a blatant penalty anyway...

if all that is true how come peacock got nowt for taking tomkins high and then smacking him on the back of the head for good measure.

[giwildgo]

Not sure I agree tbh. 1 match would generally be for careless, whereas this was classed as reckless. The write-up on the RFL website has it spot on IMHO (including the fact that Coley pleads guilty - although I don't buy his account as a 100% accurate representation).

As is pointed out, the tackler was in control, and it wasn't a mis-timed tackle, he had the whole body to go at, and he got it wrong. The fact that the player was injured showed how much force he put into it (considering it wasn't a massive swinging arm - it was just very solid to the head).

The main thing I was disappointed with over this was Coley's reaction when he got the Red card, but then he does have a habit of appealing even when he has given a blatant penalty anyway...

Seen plenty as bad this season with the player staying on the field and not getting a ban at the disciplinary. Consistency is a problem. 2 matches was the maximum ban for the grade of high tackle, generally you see partial deduction on the maximum for the sending off and a partial deduction for pleading guilty, even taking into the balance the previous warnings and a ban (for an entirely different offence), I'd have expected a match less than the maximum. It was a poor effort and reckless, but it sets a precedent that I don't think the RFL will follow or have previously to date.

The RFL might not have it in for Wigan, but I think our recent record for cards and bans compared to other teams completely dispels some people's perception that Wigan are or ever have been untouchable.

Point of contact can be a big influence on potential injury - catch someone firm on the jaw or someone very hard on the skull and you get different results. It was disappointing in my view that the injury was given so much weight, when in the past it hasn't swayed the disciplinary (i.e, no injury or Cunningham / Stosic)

Edited by giwildgo, 06 July 2010 - 05:37 PM.

[Dave T]

if all that is true how come peacock got nowt for taking tomkins high and then smacking him on the back of the head for good measure.

Because it really wasn't that bad.

Are we just gonna go through every high tackle against your team now.

This is pretty much what I said would happen in my earlier post. Every high tackle is different. The one on Tomkins looked bad until you saw the replay and then you realised it wasn't that bad at all.

[Dave T]

Seen plenty as bad this season with the player staying on the field and not getting a ban at the disciplinary. Consistency is a problem. 2 matches was the maximum ban for the grade of high tackle, generally you see partial deduction on the maximum for the sending off and a partial deduction for pleading guilty, even taking into the balance the previous warnings and a ban (for an entirely different offence), I'd have expected a match less than the maximum. It was a poor effort and reckless, but it sets a precedent that I don't think the RFL will follow or have previously to date.

The RFL might not have it in for Wigan, but I think our recent record for cards and bans compared to other teams completely dispels some people's perception that Wigan are or ever have been untouchable.

I disagree again.

Which ones do you feel were as bad? It would be interesting to compare what the RFL said about them in comparison.

[Exiled Wiganer]

I have seen worse without players being banned and plenty of them. I thought Morley's attack on Sherwin was the dirtiest piece of play I have seen this year, but as I recall there was no action taken there.
That said, it is hard to argue with the sending off and a 2 match ban doesn't seem ridiculous. I would be surprised if there was a deliberate anti-Wigan policy among the Disciplinary panel, but we seem (without my doing any analysis) to have attracted far more than our share of cards and bans. There is perhaps a subliminal "not them again" reaction to our being top of the league again.
If we push Mossop up to prop for part of the 2 games he misses we won't notice Coley's absence. He can be effective but can also make costly mistakes. We aren't particularly reliant on one player, though if Tommy, Lockers and Sam were all out at the same time we might struggle to adjust.

[Dave T]

I have seen worse without players being banned and plenty of them. I thought Morley's attack on Sherwin was the dirtiest piece of play I have seen this year, but as I recall there was no action taken there.
That said, it is hard to argue with the sending off and a 2 match ban doesn't seem ridiculous. I would be surprised if there was a deliberate anti-Wigan policy among the Disciplinary panel, but we seem (without my doing any analysis) to have attracted far more than our share of cards and bans. There is perhaps a subliminal "not them again" reaction to our being top of the league again.
If we push Mossop up to prop for part of the 2 games he misses we won't notice Coley's absence. He can be effective but can also make costly mistakes. We aren't particularly reliant on one player, though if Tommy, Lockers and Sam were all out at the same time we might struggle to adjust.

Ah, now that's a surprise.

IIRC the camera angles were inconclusive to say the least.

Any more? I am genuinely interested in these lists of high tackles that knocked the player out and made him leave the field concussed.

[my missus]

Ah, now that's a surprise.

IIRC the camera angles were inconclusive to say the least.

Any more? I am genuinely interested in these lists of high tackles that knocked the player out and made him leave the field concussed.

peacock has been cited three times in the last 12 months for high tackles and recieved no bans. go figure.

[Dave T]

peacock has been cited three times in the last 12 months for high tackles and recieved no bans. go figure.

Figured it. The tackles weren't very bad. Who did Peacock knock unconscious?

[giwildgo]

I disagree again.

Which ones do you feel were as bad? It would be interesting to compare what the RFL said about them in comparison.

I don't necessarily expect you to agree with me, its all about opinions isn't it?

Nevertheless examples;
http://www.therfl.co...tem.php?id=1600 - Grade C (2-3 matches) becomes nothing despite being found guilty?

http://www.therfl.co...tem.php?id=1922 - Worse high tackle than Coley's (in my opinion), not sent off and a poorer previous record - same outcome as Coley

http://www.therfl.co...tem.php?id=1596 - One of the most reckless tackle attempts I have seen all season and found not guilty.

http://www.therfl.co...tem.php?id=1953 - Contact with head not careless? There was a swinging arm to the head about 2 minutes later that was even worse and wasn't even deemed worthy of review.

http://www.therfl.co...tem.php?id=1705 - Different offence but example of leniency in spite of poor previous record for same offence and admittance in guilty verdict of potential to seriously injure.

I stand by my view that lack of consistency is a real issue.

Edited by giwildgo, 06 July 2010 - 06:06 PM.

[hindle xiii]

correct, there just seems to be a few players picking up injuries lately, higham, eastmond, mcllorum,pryce (both) and any number of leeds players.

Ahem, us too!

Don't forget about our long-term absentees!

[giwildgo]

Peacock in particular (and not just against Wigan) has a history of getting away without charge on careless high tackles - England captaincy seems a charm, a bit like in football in the past (see Shearer - no ban: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ss_7WGYa9nQ ).