The Blues Ox
-
Posts
5,945 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by The Blues Ox
-
-
Not really the most interesting game to watch unless you are a Batley fan but Batley do what they do very well. Their big pack just grinds teams down and like the commentators said there is nothing flashy about them but when your pack is so dominant its really hard for the opposition to get on the front foot and York struggled all game with that. I thought at times York did look like they could get space around the outside of Batley but they simply did not have the fire power in the first couple of tackles to make that space pay and have Batley going backwards.
Straight shootout now between Batley and Fax for 3rd. Going on league placings Halifax have a slightly tougher run in than Batley but there really looks nothing in it and even though Fax have a big points difference advantage if both teams win the games they should it will just about come down to the Fax V Batley game that is on TV. My worryfor Fax is that even though I think our backs are far better than Batley's, I think Batley's pack is better than ours and as we saw last night if your pack can't compete you don't win.
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, Dave T said:
We should remember that not every offence is the same, its why we have different gradings.
Luke Gale got 3 matches for moving an injured player, and I think there have been other similar bans.
In the same way that a high tackle can be just a penalty, ranging to 8 matches or more, offences are not all the same just because they are the same type of offence.
Just like any speeding doesn't get everyone the same punishment.
I agree that is how it should be with no 2 cases the same but Ive argued this point that in the Matautia case there was a chance that it were a type of crusher tackle so there was most definatley chance of neck or spine injuries which obviously Matautia could not have know about so lifting a prone player, which the Huddersfield player was, should carry that maximum ban so Im interested why this one has been deemed to be less serious than the Gwaze one where the chance of neck or spine injury was miniscule.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Dave T said:
There does appear to have been a few odd punishments in recent weeks. Are the usual crew on holiday?
I think it should have been at least double that.
Matautia only getting 3 games for an incident that was deemed to be an 8 match ban only the week prior was a particular highlight.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Matautia 3 games fo lifting an injured player. At least the disciplinary are consistant............
-
2
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:
Top is sewn up. 2nd is very much still in play. Wouldn't be at all shocked if Halifax nabbed 2nd on the last weekend of the regular season.
I think that is going to be very tough for us to do, if I remember we would need to go unbeaten and Fev would need to lose 3. I can see us going unbeaten as a possibility but assuming Fev lose to Leigh and the Fax game they would need to lose another and even though they seem to be misfiring, I just don't see anyone been able to nick a win from them.
-
For Fax yesterday Joe Keyes breaking the clubs all time record points in a game total with 34 points. What a signing he has been.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, meast said:
Same Lussick who then pulls himself up onto his knees?
He wouldnt be the first injured player to try and move himself but its irellevant if the player then pulls himself to his knees or not, the 2 Giants players could not know if he were injured and should recieve bans if the disciplinary is been consistant.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:
Would you not expect Wakefield to be able to outspend be it on existing or new contracts with having recieved the parachute payment?
Hard to say but they always seem to be a club living from one week to another and take away that funding which has seen no improvement in them in pretty much all their time in SL and I imagine they become just another Fax, Widnes, Bradford.
-
Won't be great for Wakey but their relegation would make the Championship wide open next season.
-
7 hours ago, LeeF said:
The referee’s position is not awful and is where they are coached to stand so that they have the best view within the 10. The referee cannot just “disappear”.
There is zero excuse for what Foster did despite your posts on this thread.
Im not defending Foster as you can see from any of my posts. That still does not remove the fact the ref took up a bad position. They are certainly not coached to stand where he did.
-
1 hour ago, LeeF said:
The referee’s position isn’t awful and Foster should not have even lightly moved him or brushed past him. The fault is solely with Foster and nobody else
You don't think the ref's position is awful? Thats an interesting one as you won't see many refs line up in front of defenders outside shoulders. Foster can't do his job correctly without going very close to the ref. BTW Im not defending the shove but there would have been contact if Foster defends as he is coached to do.
Edit: I guess naive maybe a better description of the ref's position rather than awful. Its shows a lack of game awareness.
-
6 hours ago, Phil W said:
If the referee thought he was physically assaulted at the time surely he would've sent him off? Having now seen the video it looks like the referee is in the way of the defensive line.
Yeah the ref's position is awful but its a clear push by Foster which he didn't need to do and it looks out of frustration when he could have very lightly moved the ref or brushed past him.
-
15 minutes ago, Chris22 said:
I think it's the right thing that lifting a potentially injured player is now a no-go. Mose Masoe suffered his injury defending his own tryline when Wakefield were on the attack. At the time, it may easily have been thought that this was 'milking' it to try and get play stopped. If a Wakefield player had decided to take matters into his own hands and lifted him then his life-changing injuries may have been even worse. In the majority of cases, lifting a potentially injured player won't aggravate an injury, but sometimes it will and the consequences could be devastating. This should be left to the medical professionals. No issue at all with Mata'utai's red card and lengthy ban that will follow.
What does frustrate me somewhat is that Danny Levi, Morgan Gannon and Luke Gale have committed similar offences without on-field punishment earlier in the season (I believe Gale's red card was from his initial, studs-up challenge). These players subsequently got 2 - 3 match bans, yet Titus Gwaze copped 8 matches for the same offence a few weeks ago. By the start of next season, it would not surprise me if this was not even be a penalty, such is our inconsistent approach to foul play. Journalists and coaches may bleat and we'll go back to square one. If we decide (rightly) that this kind of offence is a red card and lengthy ban, we must stick to it from here on in.
We have done the same with other instances of foul play, which have been watered down since the start of the season. I cannot think of another sport where an offence is a red card and several week suspension at the start of a season and nothing more than a penalty just a few weeks later. It undermines our efforts to protect player welfare, shows weak leadership and causes inevitable and avoidable inconsistency.
Best post in the thread and on the topic in my opinion.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, daz39 said:
Also, if the player was injured why would he be so keen to keep such a tight grip on the ball rather than just get himself seen to?
Maybe he was knocked out momentarily hence the tight grip. Again though its not up to the players to decide that.
-
29 minutes ago, dkw said:
Yeah, true, it can, but now there "should" be no appeal or argument over the punishment as precedent has been set, same as the punishment for retaliation is now accepted.
Again unfortunately we see refs being blamed by sime for being conned by a player cheating , which I always find weird, as its the players doing it and coaches happy to see it that should be blamed.
I don't think I have seen many people blaming the refs though. As we can see from some of the disciplinary panel decisions over the past week, they are in an almost impossible situation. From what I have seen as a Fax fan recently, the ref in the Barrow game I thought he did a good job and other than not giving Miloudi a red card(which the disciplinary agreed it should be) I thought he got most major decisions right. Both our red cards were correct. Now in the York game I also thought the ref had a good game but the disciplinary panel obviously thought otherwise as he missed 5 incidents that should have been red cards. Like someone said on another thread, who would be a ref?
-
47 minutes ago, Just Browny said:
Comical false equivalence. It's the turnover and Fages tries to take the ball. When he realises the player is hurt he stops.
But once he stops the other player has a go. Like I say where do you draw the line?
-
8 hours ago, Jughead said:
Not really inconsistent. The Halifax player received a Grade F and Gale a Grade C, one size doesn’t fit all, so it’s not a big deal.
I imagine Matautia will get more than 8 games as his was a potential crusher tackle and there was a possibility that the huddersfield player had neck or spine damage before he lifted him. In the Halifax players case the possibility of neck or spine damage were miniscule.
The following incident should also result in a ban for Fagues as it is impossible for him to know if the Saints player was injured or not so should not have been moving him irelevant of if the Saints player was doing a bit of time wasting.
Edit: Theres actually 2 players that should be banned after that incident as the physio had to come on and check the player so he must be obviously injured.........
-
2
-
-
Besides the Senior one where his own player dragged him up there is another one at 65 minutes in last nights game. Now this may be getting stupid but as Ive said before where do you draw the line both those players should be looking at bans.
-
20 minutes ago, DavidM said:
He changed his name to avoid the disciplinary
There is a chance it could work with the RFL as well......
-
37 minutes ago, gavin7094 said:
Live it may have looked like a clash of heads. TV clearly showed that it was Fairbank's left shoulder that made initial contact.
Weird then that despite our players getting banned for at best brushing York players hair, Fairbank is one player who didn't manage to pick up a ban. Plus James Ford is a bit of a drama queen isn't he so what he says really does not add much weight.
-
1
-
-
Just now, David Shepherd said:
Almost identical
Really? The two are night and day. One was a potential crusher tackle and the other was someone getting his ass handed to him via a couple of punches.
-
1 minute ago, Loiner said:
Do you think for one minute he's going to get an 8 match ban, be lucky to get 3.
They kind of dont have any choice because unlike the Gwaze incident, there actually was the possibility of a spine or neck injury in this one.
-
Some of these collisions could really cause a lot of damage, my suggestion is we make each game tag to avoid anything really bad happening.
-
16 minutes ago, gavin7094 said:
In what way exactly?
You called it an assault. Looked like an accidental class of heads and seen as though the disciplinary pulled our players for even looking at a camera the wrong way I presume they took a look at it.
-
1
-
Mon 18th Jul: Ch: York City Knights v Batley Bulldogs KO 19:45 (Premier Sports)
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
Who would have thought at the beginning of the season everyone would be clammering to have an away semi final at Fev.