Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

coley


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,238 posts

Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:14 PM

QUOTE (Hannibal @ Jul 7 2010, 12:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Has anyone else agreed with your, completely unbiased, assessment of the Morley incident?

I demand that, if you are to pass judgement on Coley, you put a link up to the video in this thread. I also demand that you post video evidence of every other case you have stated on here. I mean, without video evidence, how are we to deem that anything is inconclusive?

Yes, the disciplniary panel.

Both games were live on Sky so video evidence was used and in one case was conclusive, not so in the other.

All the incidents I have discussed have video evidence and we have seen them on TV. I genuinely must have missed the clip which shows this horrific Morley incident (and so did the panel it seems).

Edited by Dave T, 06 July 2010 - 11:16 PM.


#42 Hannibal

Hannibal
  • Coach
  • 11,790 posts

Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:22 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 7 2010, 12:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes, the disciplniary panel.

Both games were live on Sky so video evidence was used and in one case was conclusive, not so in the other.

All the incidents I have discussed have video evidence and we have seen them on TV. I genuinely must have missed the clip which shows this horrific Morley incident (and so did the panel it seems).

So now we are at the point whereby we agree with every decision that the panel makes?

It seems to me that it suits you to agree with the one regarding Morley.

#43 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,238 posts

Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:31 PM

QUOTE (Hannibal @ Jul 7 2010, 12:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So now we are at the point whereby we agree with every decision that the panel makes?

It seems to me that it suits you to agree with the one regarding Morley.

If you actually read the whole thread, and weren't just a wind-up merchant you would see that I actually started off in a thread stating that I thought the panel was right and had no issues with them, in a thread that was nothing about Morley.

Naturally, a Wigan fan threw a couple of Wire incidents my way to challenge the consistency thing, and that is how we got to Morley.

I also supported the panels decision on O'Loughlin and Peacock, how does that fit into the whole Warrington thing?

I get sick of week in week out people complaining about inconsistency from both refs and the panel, when on here none of us can agree. Forget the Morley incident (I am being genuine when I say I haven't seen a camera view that shows anything worthwhile), and let's talk about the O'Loughlin incident.

It was a Wigan player and he was slaughtered by most on here and in the post-match interview with Brown. The panel take the emotion away and look at things for a good while with loads of camera angles where available. Sure I have no doubts that they make mistakes, but your argument that I am biased towards Wire was actually nothing to do with this thread, and I was defending the panel and process well before Wire were thrown into the mix (like you will often find me doing on ref threads).

#44 Hannibal

Hannibal
  • Coach
  • 11,790 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 05:55 AM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 7 2010, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If you actually read the whole thread, and weren't just a wind-up merchant you would see that I actually started off in a thread stating that I thought the panel was right and had no issues with them, in a thread that was nothing about Morley.

Naturally, a Wigan fan threw a couple of Wire incidents my way to challenge the consistency thing, and that is how we got to Morley.

I also supported the panels decision on O'Loughlin and Peacock, how does that fit into the whole Warrington thing?

I get sick of week in week out people complaining about inconsistency from both refs and the panel, when on here none of us can agree. Forget the Morley incident (I am being genuine when I say I haven't seen a camera view that shows anything worthwhile), and let's talk about the O'Loughlin incident.

It was a Wigan player and he was slaughtered by most on here and in the post-match interview with Brown. The panel take the emotion away and look at things for a good while with loads of camera angles where available. Sure I have no doubts that they make mistakes, but your argument that I am biased towards Wire was actually nothing to do with this thread, and I was defending the panel and process well before Wire were thrown into the mix (like you will often find me doing on ref threads).

Sorry Dave, but the O'Loughlin thing has always been a red herring.

There was nothing in that tackle, and most people can see that.

I'm concerned that you can't see the wrong in Morley's "tackle", but if you haven't seen it, you haven't seen it.

#45 Exiled Wiganer

Exiled Wiganer
  • Coach
  • 6,245 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 07:28 AM

My opiniom remains that Morley's tackle was dirtier and more dangerous. Plus he has more previous than Attila the Hun. I am not even complaining about Coley's sending off or his ban. And yet Wires make sneering, dismissive posts about my opinion while expressing their own views as gospels. It appears my opinion is shared by plenty of others, inc non Wigan fans, and hence objectively not bonkers.
If this had been an anti Wire thread one of them would have gone boo hoo and had the thing locked.

#46 Brigg Rover

Brigg Rover
  • Coach
  • 1,982 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 08:16 AM

The real horror from this weekend is the fact that Korkidas got away with an elbow aimed towards the head of Dobson after he had passed the ball. Now whether he actually made contact with his elbow to the head I am not sure from the one quick replay I have seen. But the ball was gone he only had eyes for Dobson and he clearly had his elbow raised going forward.

No charge is the result. Absolute disgrace, at least Fakir was looking at the guy who whacked him!

#47 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,238 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:00 AM

QUOTE (Hannibal @ Jul 7 2010, 06:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Sorry Dave, but the O'Loughlin thing has always been a red herring.

There was nothing in that tackle, and most people can see that.

I'm concerned that you can't see the wrong in Morley's "tackle", but if you haven't seen it, you haven't seen it.
Think what you want, there was an awful lot of debate about the O'Loughlin tackle, just like there was the Morley tackle.

People wanted them both stringing up, yet the panel found them both innocent, that is why there is a similarity.

I'm sure you think I am taking the P about the Morley thing but I am 100% genuine in saying I have not seen a close up or a decent angle, as most of the cameras had moved on with the ball. This was the reason I asked for any links or evidence, as I am suspecting I have genuinely missed something with the way everybody is going on.

I know when people were making stuff up about the Hudds disallowed try at Wembley last year, Sam came on with photo evidence showing the players arm on the ground, I thought somebody (who is more techically minded than me) may be able to do the same, or may have been able to at the time. The fact is that there is no benefit to me sticking to my guns on this one, if Morley did something, so what, me seeing a camera angle that proves it and changing my opinion is not now going to get him a ban! I'm not even saying he didn't foul the player, I am saying there was no decent camera angle (and the panels words back that up).

There really isn't much more I can say about that incident, I watched the match back after the event, and IMHO it didn't show a good angle, certainly no close up. I was interested to see if I had missed an angle, yet people put that down to bias, then fine.

#48 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,238 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:13 AM

QUOTE (Exiled Wiganer @ Jul 7 2010, 08:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
My opiniom remains that Morley's tackle was dirtier and more dangerous. Plus he has more previous than Attila the Hun. I am not even complaining about Coley's sending off or his ban. And yet Wires make sneering, dismissive posts about my opinion while expressing their own views as gospels. It appears my opinion is shared by plenty of others, inc non Wigan fans, and hence objectively not bonkers.
If this had been an anti Wire thread one of them would have gone boo hoo and had the thing locked.
You think my initial response of:

Ah, now that's a surprise.

was sneering and dismissive? Really, good God!

How can somebody express their own view as Gospel? They are my views, I regularly use IMHO etc. but I am allowed to express them, and am allowed to challenge other people's.

There are plenty of people who think that O'Loughlin deserved a ban, in fact the furore it caused at the time was very similar to the Morley one, and guess what, it gets dismissed on here as a red herring.

I was happy to engage in decent discussion, see the posts with giwildgo, believe it or not, not everybody has an agenda, not everybody hates your beloved Wigan, and my original involvement in this thread was to highlight the fact that we get complaints about consistency whichever way it goes.

O'Loughlin gets let off - fans go mad saying there is favouritism to Wigan.
Coley gets a ban - fans go mad saying that Wigan are victimised.

The only consistent thing here is that the fans go mad, they really can't win.

Are you going to bang on about that thread getting locked in every thread? It is irellevant, God knows who reported it, and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't even a Wire fan who did. I know I certainly didn't and from knowing other Wire fans style on here, I would be stunned if they complained about it!

#49 Exiled Wiganer

Exiled Wiganer
  • Coach
  • 6,245 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 11:22 AM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 6 2010, 06:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.


It was the "now that's a surprise" that was annoying. What was the point you were making?
I do not think many folk care that much about my beloved Wigan, but mine is a perfectly valid opinion, expressed as such. Other opinions are as valid as your own - mine is shared by others, Wiganers and non-Wiganers alike.
I agree with much else on the thread, but took a hugely disproportionate exception to that.


#50 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,238 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 11:25 AM

QUOTE (Exiled Wiganer @ Jul 7 2010, 12:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It was the "now that's a surprise" that was annoying. What was the point you were making?
I do not think many folk care that much about my beloved Wigan, but mine is a perfectly valid opinion, expressed as such. Other opinions are as valid as your own - mine is shared by others, Wiganers and non-Wiganers alike.
I agree with much else on the thread, but took a hugely disproportionate exception to that.
In that case, I sincerely apologise. It was said in jest, in a 'here we go down the Wire v Wigan route' that many of these threads go down whether we mean them to or not.

Didn't mean anything personal, it was purely based on the fact that you were a Wigan fan and I'm a Wire fan.


#51 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,238 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 11:28 AM

QUOTE (Exiled Wiganer @ Jul 7 2010, 12:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I do not think many folk care that much about my beloved Wigan
On this note, this is one of the reasons II get touchy when a thread becomes a Wire v Wigan thread. I actually have a lot of time for Wigan, they are my favourite rivals, and as a club they are an example for many others.

Unfortunately, your opinion can be dismissed simply because of the rivalry (which I appreciate I was guilty of with you - see above).

Saints are the ones who get to me!


#52 giwildgo

giwildgo
  • Coach
  • 4,048 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 05:57 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 6 2010, 11:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
*Deleted majority for clarity sake - most points are fairly valid and a matter of opinion where we differ - incidents you haven't seen were recollections of highlights I saw at the time, no links sorry*

Nobody agrees. I take it you thought there was no issue with O'Loughlins 'tackle' on Robinson? Despite Nathan Brown (recognised as a top coach in SL) thinking it was disgusting and threatening retribution!

With such varied views on exactly the same incident, how on earth can the panel win?

O'Loughlin's late tackle on Robinson wasn't a great effort, but the rules for some reason distinguish between a late tackle on the kicker from a late tackle on a passer that has released the ball. In my opinion it shouldn't - O'Loughlin's was worthy of a sin-bin but nothing more, seen plenty similar since that haven't had the outcry, including a poor effort from Mossop in Sunday's game.

Notwithstanding the above, that doesn't make Nathan Brown any less of an idiot. I actually tried to look up the number of charges for the subsequent game at Huddersfield, as there were a series of reckless shots making contact to the head from both sides that were equal to the Coley effort - Mason, Griffin, Tomkins J, etc, but as if to prove my point on consistency they were treated completely differently and not even charged.

I know you mentioned about knocking a player unconscious and no example being comparable - but again thats an area where we differ, the potential severity and / or intent of a high shot is often not replicated in the ultimate consequences. I'd argue that Moore's effort on Donald in the Leeds / Saints game was potentially much worse than Coley (both feet off the floor, swinging arm and aimed at the head with all body to go at), but he was lucky that Donald ducked far enough that contact was minimal, whereas the angle of Fakir approaching and his running style made the consequences of Coley's lazy effort and poor technique look much worse than it was purely due to the resultant point of contact.

Like I said right at the start, I agreed that it was a sending off and that a ban was required, but two matches in my opinion was excessive.

Posted Image


oderint dum metuant


#53 giwildgo

giwildgo
  • Coach
  • 4,048 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 06:17 PM

Another one for you to consider Dave - this one came to mind today, as I thought it much more dangerous than Coley's and it also caused injury to Lomax;


Then the more lenient charge and write up;
http://www.therfl.co...tem.php?id=1613

How that was considered careless rather than reckless I'll never know - terrible techique and given relative sizes of player involved a shoulder charge would have ensured part of the arm would have made contact above the shoulder of Lomax in any circumstances.

Edited by giwildgo, 07 July 2010 - 06:18 PM.

Posted Image


oderint dum metuant


#54 Red Willow

Red Willow
  • Coach
  • 4,732 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 07:02 PM

You also have have to take into consideration the past records of the players and Coley has had a few run ins, often for silly tackles or petulant offences. Certainly did when at Salford cool.gif cool.gif When was he ;ast up before the committee?

#55 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,238 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:25 PM

QUOTE (giwildgo @ Jul 7 2010, 07:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Another one for you to consider Dave - this one came to mind today, as I thought it much more dangerous than Coley's and it also caused injury to Lomax;


Then the more lenient charge and write up;
http://www.therfl.co...tem.php?id=1613

How that was considered careless rather than reckless I'll never know - terrible techique and given relative sizes of player involved a shoulder charge would have ensured part of the arm would have made contact above the shoulder of Lomax in any circumstances.

biggrin.gif I'm sensing we aren't going to agree on much on this one mate, as I didn't find that one too bad, with the write up about right.

IMO he clearly went for the shoulder charge, the impact was with the shoulder, at high pace and he was gtting stepped. Once the player had beaten him with that step, his lower arm came up, and I don't feel that it was an attept to elbow the ball carrier. I think it looked more spectacular than it actually was, and the actual offence was that the shoulder charge was high, and much of that comes from the difference in size in players (although that doesn't excuse a high tackle).

When you look at the speed, and the fact that there was no raised arm, and the fact he was stepped, then I can definitely see why it would be classed as accidental rather than reckless or intentional.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users