Jump to content

Dave T

Coach
  • Posts

    47,837
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    334

Everything posted by Dave T

  1. Yorkshire, Lancs, Cumbria and an All Stars XIII (which could be made up of the other counties, plus overseas players to make them competitive). Why not have a draw for the two semis and then have a double header for the finals and 3rd v 4th.
  2. 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).
  3. 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).
  4. How come you ignore examples of me defending other clubs and players? My defence here is actually of the panel, and I also use an example of a Wigan player who was absolutely slated on here and by a top coach. Why did you ignore that? Is it merely a coincidence? If I say something against my club, people like you aren't queuing up to say anything, so I can't really win. Of all the incidents that have involved my team on this thread, I said Carvell deserved a ban, Morley's was inconclusive (same as the panels), and I haven't seen the Brent Webb tackle against the Wire player. I'm still waiting to see this TotalRL exlusive video of the Morley incident.
  5. Where do I preach for people to open both eyes? I give my opinion, you should try it some time, instead of just lying in wait for snide remarks. If anybody can show me the Morley incident I would be happy to review it again and stand corrected. I watched it after the event and because the ball had gone the best camera angle was a long shot which was inconclusive. The inconclusive thing isn't something I have made up, these are the panels words: The committee have scrutinised DVD very carefully. There was a collision and committee are not satisfied this could have been avoided. The committee are also not satisfied the initial contact was high but was towards the upper part of the body. The player
  6. Absolutely, and I wasn't challenging you for the sake of it, I was genuinely interested in the examples you would come up with, thanks for taking the time to do that (although I'm sure it's no surprise to you that I don't agree with them all!!!) This is one that was looked at in a lot of detail. I had no issue with a ban, however at the time some people were hysterical about it, and it wasn't as bad as people made out. I would have agreed that 1 match is about right, as ultimately the players have a responsibility to play in a way that doesn't cause injury. I haven't seen this as obviously it wasn't on TV, is there a link to it anywhere? It's be unfair of me to comment otherwise. There are hundreds of people who also acted this hysterically about the O'Loughlin one at Murrayfield, however when people actually look at it frame by frame in slow motion (which the panel do) then it isn't as clear cut as fans would suggest. I have still yet to see a good angle of this, and by the wording the panel use, they didn't get an angle which many fans on here seemed to get which showed a shocking tackle! Again, if anyone has any links of this, I'd love to see it. I genuinely don't think there was anything in this at all. I remember I was watching this game in the pub with my dad and at first we both thought it was a red card. When you watched it again in slow mo, it was just a spectacular looking tackle. Look at the fact that it was a flat hand, and he had been stepped by a player two-thirds his weight and there was nothing in it. Can't disagree and this is probably the one time I have criticised the disciplinary this season. My final point is though that you have failed to supply high tackles where the ball carrier has been knocked unconscious and had to leave the field as a result. All of the above incidents are for very different things, so of course you won't get consistency. 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?
  7. Figured it. The tackles weren't very bad. Who did Peacock knock unconscious?
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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...
  12. Sorry, meant the Wigan v Wire game. At the same time I was also reading that Higham will miss the semi final!!!
  13. 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!
  14. Think it'll be a relatively close one for a while, with us perhaps pulling away later on, maybe by 18. We weren't overly impressive against Crusaders, but are still tough enough to win games like that, which is pleasing. Hopefully Morley will be back, and Carvell and Myler have another game under their belt, so we may get to look a little slicker.
  15. Don't read the Guardian mate. He told Mark Chapman a couple of weeks ago what the chanting was. He said when he heard it it hurt him. He said him and the players discussed it and how hurtful it was in the changing rooms after the game. I haven't read everything on it, but these are things I have watched him on TV saying.
  16. There was worse than that chanted at Gareth Thomas.
  17. This is one of the key areas that concerns me about their statement. They are making out it was some kind of travesty that a person who had heard or seen nothing wasn't called as a witness! Ref's miss all sorts on the field but people still get cited for things afterwards. Do people who subsequently get banned then call the ref to their defence in the appeal because he didn;t see anything, so therefore he hadn't done anyting?
  18. Apologies, obviously I haven't got used to your posting style yet, maybe the odd smiley would help!
  19. Either way, I'll bet he isn't doing this for free.
  20. I agree. I think it is a skill staying in the field when you are close to the line, just as it is a defence getting someone in touch. We shouldn't remove any of these exciting defensive plays IMHO.
  21. Yep, cos that's how lawyers work! When they think someone is innocent they give them freebies!!!
  22. I assume that they are not disputing the fact that they didn't conduct a meaningful inquiry, which was another thing they were criticised for. If they did everything right (which they clearly feel they did) then justice will be done. I am not overly impressed with the statement tbh, but it is perhaps understandable as they are not happy with the decision. Couple of issues: Firstly, it is as though they are content to play the incident down, pointing out that it was quiet and only 15s in total. However, the stewards will have heard this, and would pick it up at the time better than the cameras, so I don;t feel that necessarily excuses them. Secondly, the match commissioner issue. I don't see the relevance here. He didn't hear anything. With that in mind, why should he be dragged into the inquiry? It's as though they are saying there is no issue as he didn't hear anything. He is one man, and can't hear everything. Thirdly, just because there was only one complaint doesn't make it alright, again they seem to be playing it down as not too serious based on only one complaint being received. Finally, as mentioned earlier, they do not even mention the afterwards inquiry, so I assume they admit they weren't up to scratch there. I'm not gonna get into the whole original fine again, just commenting on what I believe is a weak statement, and if that is the basis of their appeal, I am not too sure what kind of success they will have.
  23. Yeah, thought we had more than that, not great with names!
  24. Obviously you know a hell of a lot more than me about the state of the game in your part of the world, the points I made should be taken at face value, as they were purely based on the fact that we hear there is loads of talent, yet it seems this talent isn't enough for even the lower placed teams, although your post above tackles reasons for that, thanks. In terms of the scouting of Cumbrians, I find your comments staggering, but then I suppose we have always been one of the clubs that have looked to Cumbria, with the likes of Chris Rudd and Gary Chambers having long careers at Warrington, and hopefully Ben Harrison will do so now.
  25. Some good points, and I agree with many of them, my frustration isn't limited to Workington doing this, as I have pointed out on susequent posts, all clubs are as bad as each other, it was just that Town were the club highlighted. When Wigan sign an overseas player they get questioned about their local youth policy, this is no different. I would just point out that comparing a county to a town is not the same thing. I also didn't suggest that Cumbria couldn't field a SL team of Cumbrians. I was simply pointing out that we are old time and again about the wealth of talent in that region, yet even clubs in Cumbria are having to take advantage of loopholes. Nothing pointed, and not even a major criticism of Workington or Cumbria, more a comment on the state of the game that even hotbeds of the game cannot provide a strong lower-tier team. And that was a point I also made.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.