Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
my missus

coley

55 posts in this topic

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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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'.

:huh:

Sorry mate, struggling with the relevance tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:huh:

Sorry mate, struggling with the relevance tbh.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

what semi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't be surprised to see an appeal to get him back for the semi but IMHO 2 is fine.

what semi?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :rolleyes:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=1600 - Grade C (2-3 matches) becomes nothing despite being found guilty?

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

http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.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.uk/about/disciplinary_item.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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

:lol: ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Morley, I haven't got a video of it, but have seen plenty of rugby in my time and can recall it pretty well. I was pleased he was able to play against Wigan as it is important for our young lads to pit themselves against everything the opposition has to offer. That way we learn plenty about ourselves.

I have no issue with Coley's sending off or ban, and Wigan will cope without him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Morley, I haven't got a video of it, but have seen plenty of rugby in my time and can recall it pretty well.

you clearly can't recall it well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Is it really a surprise?

According to you Coley's ban was a slam dunk, and the evidence against Morley was "Inconclusive".

Time to open both eyes Dave, just like you seem to be preaching to everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you lok at Coley's ban in isolatio I think it's about right but. however, incinsistency reigns again because, and Sorry dave T, the attack by Morley on Sherwin was worse in my opinion and I THINK Morley has a much poorer disciplinary record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't necessarily expect you to agree with me, its all about opinions isn't it?

Nevertheless examples;

http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=1600 - Grade C (2-3 matches) becomes nothing despite being found guilty?

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

http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.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.uk/about/disciplinary_item.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.

Have you got any of the several incidents relating to joel tomkins and the disciplinary panel up there old lad........thought not. Use of the knees in both games against leeds, coincidence or just a dirty ######? "Cynical and unnecessary" said the panel of mr tomkins sly tactics. Fancy, a wigan player eh, who'd a thought it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017