Sign in to follow this  
Old Frightful

Leuluai and Samkins at the RFL Disciplinary...

Recommended Posts

One match ? Moi Moi ( league one ) got four for supposed reckless if unintentional contact to the head ... but Samkins n Lulu ( SL stars ) get one and no onfield sanction for reckless yet unintentional direct contact to head 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DavidM said:

One match ? Moi Moi ( league one ) got four for supposed reckless if unintentional contact to the head ... but Samkins n Lulu ( SL stars ) get one and no onfield sanction for reckless yet unintentional direct contact to head 

Because Tomkins is needed for the NZ series and Moi Moi wasn't needed by anyone other than Workington?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 7723 said:

Nothing for Charnley?

I thought there was a big difference in the Tomkins/Charnley incidents.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hicks set the precedent when he failed to award Warrington with a penalty try when Charnley went in for the opening try and George Williams made no attempt at making a legitimate tackle by sliding in with his knees. 

The two Tomkins decisions were utterly barmy. How he never saw yellow at least once was crazy. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cumbrian Fanatic said:

Because Tomkins is needed for the NZ series and Moi Moi wasn't needed by anyone other than Workington?

And funnily enough the video evidence was a lot clearer . But Samkins seems pretty bullet proof looking at Saturday 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

I thought there was a big difference in the Tomkins/Charnley incidents.

Both made contact to the head with a knee. Both pretty reckless. Both could probably have been avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 7723 said:

Both made contact to the head with a knee. Both pretty reckless. Both could probably have been avoided.

I don’t think Charnley’s was anywhere near reckless. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teflon Tomkins was lucky not to see at least a yellow. Charnley stayed on his feet but there was contact with the head so couldn't argue if he'd been carded. Ref said " same as the Tomkins one"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the trip was more clear cut, and like someone said on the match thread, a bit of leniency for a GF.  However, we cant show leniency and then punish after the fact.

Just far easier sticking to the rules and judging events on the pitch fairly.  Could've made a difference too.  ST placekicking was dire, but his kicking for field position was 1st class.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, 7723 said:

Both made contact to the head with a knee. Both pretty reckless. Both could probably have been avoided.

I've only seen the incidents live (and on the big screen) but my initial view is that Charnley's was faster and he was closer to the ball carrier, whereas Tomkins led with his legs (as he has a tendency to do). 

On the overall point, I think we have an interesting problem here, we have had 15 red cards this season in SL, but far more bans than that. In the NRL it is far more extreme than that. Are we being too lenient on the field to avoid ruining the game? If so, do we need to rethink, i.e. a red card where a sub can come on, or do we need to use the sin-bin more? 

We are contradicting ourselves as a game, keep banning people when a ref has decided that the offence is worth only a penalty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite often if a team is reduced to 12 men it brings added drama to the game.  How often have we seen them go onto win or produce a heroic effort in defeat so the NRL's protection is misjudged in my view and a foolish path to follow especially when Elstones talking about bringing more excitement into the games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clogiron said:

Quite often if a team is reduced to 12 men it brings added drama to the game.  How often have we seen them go onto win or produce a heroic effort in defeat so the NRL's protection is misjudged in my view and a foolish path to follow especially when Elstones talking about bringing more excitement into the games.

I don't disagree. Whichever view you hold on this though, there is a clear disconnect with on-field punishment during the game and in the week after. I do think change needs to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I don't disagree. Whichever view you hold on this though, there is a clear disconnect with on-field punishment during the game and in the week after. I do think change needs to happen.

Having the system that we do does offer is advantages, however, I feel we’ve got to a point where referees won’t make a decision in regards to giving out cards and would rather leave it for the judiciary system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Having the system that we do does offer is advantages, however, I feel we’ve got to a point where referees won’t make a decision in regards to giving out cards and would rather leave it for the judiciary system. 

And the advantage of the punishment goes to the team the offender plays next rather than the team he offended against.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game against France will be his ban and he can play against the kiwis 

Edited by barnyia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I've only seen the incidents live (and on the big screen) but my initial view is that Charnley's was faster and he was closer to the ball carrier, whereas Tomkins led with his legs (as he has a tendency to do). 

On the overall point, I think we have an interesting problem here, we have had 15 red cards this season in SL, but far more bans than that. In the NRL it is far more extreme than that. Are we being too lenient on the field to avoid ruining the game? If so, do we need to rethink, i.e. a red card where a sub can come on, or do we need to use the sin-bin more? 

We are contradicting ourselves as a game, keep banning people when a ref has decided that the offence is worth only a penalty. 

Gaelic football and hurling do exactly what you are mooting, Dave.  In addition to red and yellow cards, which work as in soccer, they have a black card which, if I understand it correctly, means a player is dismissed for the duration of the game, but can be replaced by a team mate off the subs' bench.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a Wigan fan, so I'm unused to seeing our players in front of the disciplinary. Does this mean they have been charged, or found guilty by trial by forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

IMO the trip was more clear cut, and like someone said on the match thread, a bit of leniency for a GF.  However, we cant show leniency and then punish after the fact.

Just far easier sticking to the rules and judging events on the pitch fairly.  Could've made a difference too.  ST placekicking was dire, but his kicking for field position was 1st class.

Well, according to the rules (Laws) the "trip" was not illegal as he had a hand on him at the same time. It was called a Cumberland throw when I was a lad.

Edited by Blind side johnny
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

It was called a Cumberland throw when I was a lad.

You are Ray French and I claim my BBC RL Commentary subtitle machine.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

And the advantage of the punishment goes to the team the offender plays next rather than the team he offended against.

If we play Catalans first (assuming no internationals count), we could bizarrely benefit from the ban... 

At the time, I thought the trip was appalling and the slide one of those things. Having seen them on the TV, I can see why he got away with the trip as his arms were in the vicinity (particularly when viewed from the referees angle). Having seen it up close and personal I have no doubt it was a deliberate trip, with the arms a token effort.

As for the slides, Charnley and Sam’s were much of a muchness. (Williams had nowhere to go and didn’t touch Josh for the record). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Well, according to the rules (Laws) the "trip" was not illegal as he had a hand on him at the same time. It was called a Cumberland throw when I was a lad.

Exactly. You see exactly the same technique used numerous times throughout the course of the season. It sort of looked worse because of the speed he was going and the fact that he half broke the tackle. It certainly wasn't illegal though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said:

Well, according to the rules (Laws) the "trip" was not illegal as he had a hand on him at the same time. It was called a Cumberland throw when I was a lad.

That was the weakest Cumberland throw I’ve ever seen then.  Usually, you got thrown over the hip.  Maybe a Chickenley hike.

 

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  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express Yearbook 2018/19 - Order Now


Rugby League World - Nov 2018

Rugby League World - Nov 2018



League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday