Old Frightful Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 Both receive 1 match penalty notices after Saturday's GF. Does Wire a lot of good that doesn't it, well done Mr Hicks. http://www.rugby-league.com/article/53763/disciplinary-match-review-panel Hull FC....The Sons of God... (Well, we are about to be crucified on Good Friday) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 Nothing for Charnley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Clothesoff Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 No charges brought against multiple match officials who failed to properly penalise incidents on field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidM Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cumbrian Fanatic Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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? 100% League 0% Union Just because I don't know doesn't mean I don't understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieSaint Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 19 minutes ago, 7723 said: Nothing for Charnley? I thought there was a big difference in the Tomkins/Charnley incidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Clothesoff Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidM Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieSaint Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleftherios Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clogiron Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Clothesoff Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Frightful Posted October 15, 2018 Author Share Posted October 15, 2018 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. Hull FC....The Sons of God... (Well, we are about to be crucified on Good Friday) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barnyia Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 The game against France will be his ban and he can play against the kiwis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Warrior Dragon Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blind side johnny Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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. Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Frightful Posted October 15, 2018 Author Share Posted October 15, 2018 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. Hull FC....The Sons of God... (Well, we are about to be crucified on Good Friday) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled Wiganer Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.