MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield

Leeds picked up plenty of yellow cards last season John no doubt but I wonder why, when they are such a dirty bunch they actually have one of the lowest tallies for those really dirty fouls that generate red cards? You would imagine a team that was really dirty would have more?! Oddly this season Leeds United have 13 yellow cards which is way off the pace of Man United on 20 who are on course for a new seasonal record of 127! Strange for such a dirty bunch to be so far behind. You do realise that a YC in football is considerably closer to a penalty in RL than it is a card. Do you go to games John or just watch on the telly and grub to forums?

Ohh dear John you’re at it again with your Leeds United tripe! Leeds United have been back in the PL for two seasons plus the start of this season. In that time they have picked up 4 red cards! This is the same as Man City and Wolves. Only a handful of clubs have less; Manchester United 3, Crystal Palace 3, Spurs 3, Liverpool 2 and Leicester 1. In the same period Arsenal have collected 9, Everton 8, Brighton 8, Aston Villa 7, West Ham 6, Newcastle 6, Southampton 6 and Chelsea 6. West Brom 4, Fulham 3, Sheffield United 3, Brentford 3, Watford 3, Burnley 2, Norwich 1 have played at least one season less. You posted a Talksport article the other day, if you actually listened to it they were gushing about Leeds. This anti Leeds narrative is embarrassing. The type of rubbish glory supporters come out with.

We are not going down Tommy, irrespective of injuries. Those in charge justified (and essentially blamed for the teams poor performances) the clear out of a few years ago based on a required culture change banding words like 'rotten' around. Now they go and do this. They cleared out players who had an apparent poor attitude to being professional athletes and now bring back Hardaker who cant even get his backside to training as is suggested to be the case at Wigan. I thought Hetherington was good at his job but over the last six years or so I have started to realise that he dropped lucky with the golden generation and the potential of a club/fanbase positioned in the second biggest city in the country. Even the demise of Leeds United helped drive fans through the turnstiles. Hetherington is a liability and needs to go; this is the straw that breaks the camels back for me.

I suspect many more fans and sponsors will be testing the phone capacity at Headingley given this atrocious announcement. Hetherington has totally misjudged the situation and whilst he collected a tremendous amount of credit via the ‘golden generation’ he has completely mismanaged the club in the last 5 years or so and certainly in my eyes that goodwill is now running on empty. We often refer to Rugby League as a family. We rarely have the aggression that football tribalism brings and consequentially fans feel comfortable to mix together and children often attend from a young age. This year my youngest daughter of 18 months will attend her first two games against Salford and Castleford. In what world do parents reasonably explain to children that actions have consequences when ‘sporting idols’ do not operate to the same rule book as us ‘normal’ people do. Only God knows what this guy actually gets up to but we do know that he is homophobic, he is a drug abuser, drink drives and commits ABH. Short of being caught beating the wife, he has the completed the set. When you consider his age and form it makes this situation even more bizarre. Myler has apparently split from his wife which has potentially contributed to requiring more cover at FB but, for me, this decision shines a spot light on Hetherington and that it might be time to sell up before the fans start protesting for it.

As a fan that often criticises referees for inconsistency the ruck is not high on my agenda for that very reason. The referee does have to police something live that has plenty going on. Players are trying to reef the ball, feign trapped arms or hold arms in, milk injuries, holding down, incorrect PTB etc It is frustrating when you see mistakes but unless you see the weight of mistakes heavily in one direction I certainly accept that they are part of the game and I do not see many obvious ways to clean it up. What I believe is entirely wrong is the inconsistency of the big calls, often game changing, that the officials seem to deliver on a regular basis but seem to suffer no recourse. I think those that continually preach that referees are beyond reproach are a million miles away from understanding the real problem. I keep hearing and today even watched a FB video justifying horrendous inconsistencies as essentially human nature. You simply cannot officiate anything professionally if those in charge consistently deliver dramatically inconsistent interpretations of the rules. The officials should be so well drilled that anything remotely different from previous decisions given 10 minutes ago or 10 weeks ago should stand out like a sore thumb and yet we can hardly get through a game. I am not talking about a hard to see knock on or a 50/50 flat pass, but rather penalties and cards that are awarded, especially with time and consideration from a video referee. I also think that the officials should engage with the media to provide answers to questions raised. Not necessarily after each game but maybe weekly once the games have been played and questions can be presented in one media session. The clubs are stakeholders in the game and they are entitled to question the officials performance, especially inconsistencies. Remember we are often talking game changing erroneous decisions. If the officials were subjected to the media once a week maybe some of the inconsistencies will be explained away reducing some of the frustrations out there - so it might be a two way street.

Dave the Wigan player used his heel to 'kick' the ball which is specifically outlawed and therefore the rules do not consider what he did as a legitimate action. I have read on here that even Sky picked this up in their broadcast? In your point you state the kick originated off the shin, which is perfectly legal. The rule states: - "Kick means imparting motion to the ball with any part of the leg (except the heel) from the knee to toe inclusive."

The forum only permits exceptionally small files sizes and so posting relevant video is not possible. My picture showed the moment of impact, like it or not. It was knees first with Powell landing on Walkers arm. If you consider for a second why leading with the knees is specifically outlawed. The rule states: (c) drops knees first on to an opponent who is on the ground I do not know how much Powell weighs but lets say roughly 16st. More than half his weight would have been applied to the first knee that landed, which was the knee landing directly on Walkers arm. Obviously we have some element of error here but it would be in the region of 10/11 stone at say 20 mph? Walkers arm was laid flat on the grass and couldn't go down and therefore it absorbed the entire force of the impact. Do you remember Flower punching Hohiah the second time when he was on the ground. Hohiah head moved only slightly to the side as it has no where to go. Imagine taking the same punch if they were stood up. It would have taken him off his feet. Just because you see nothing much in it, a knee landing directly onto a part of the body with so much weight and momentum is highly dangerous. In this case it could have snapped Walkers arm. Answer honestly; if it had of snapped his arm would you still be suggesting it was a legal tackle and deserving of a try? If you think I am wrong tell me why. Explain how he did not lead with his knees and make direct contact with Walker. I just dont understand why some folk pass contradicting opinions with a foundation of their argument being 'you are wrong because, you know, erm you just are'.

And your point is? The rule is quoted as: "Kick means imparting motion to the ball with any part of the leg (except the heel) from the knee to toe inclusive."

It proves everything Damien, my image shows the moment of first impact. It was with a knee landing on the arm of a player on the floor. The knee then dislodges the ball. You can talk until the cows comes home but you cannot rewrite history. Your pic does not depict the tackle does it, Powell has not even arrived yet. Your argument which basically amounts to 'what did you expect Powell to do' can only be used as mitigation against the severity of the punishment and not to vindicate an illegal tackle. He chose to tackle and ran the risk of it going wrong. Just like Currie did last week, just like Prior did last week - no malice, no intent but all of them fouls. You have to penalise what actually happened and not some hypothetical scenario blaming Walker for going to ground. It is like blaming the wife for her black eye because dinner was on the plate late! It was Powell's choice to try an effect the tackle and in doing so he led with his knees. First contact was made by the knees and the rules explicitly prohibit this. As I have said, it is irrespective to the outcome in the end but just another inconsistency by the video referee. As sure as death and taxes they (officials) will be penalising them this season just like they have done so in previous seasons.

Powell led with his knees Damien - it is outlawed. He literally knocked the ball out with his knee having landed directly on Walkers arm. Malicious, no, but leading with the knees regardless. The rules precisely prohibit it. (c) drops knees first on to an opponent who is on the ground Unless my eyes are playing tricks it is knees first.... If you disagree - please explain how this rule does not apply?

Just catching up on the thread. Leeds were statistically the better team in the first half but the score board said differently which is the bit that matters. Leeds were terrible in the second half rather than Wigan being some sort of well oiled machine. The pie fans that are purring are probably a little premature in their assessment but they were worthy winners. Obviously momentum is a big thing in RL and even with my biased hat on (or so I will be accused) I do not think some more poor decisions changed the result. For me the Austin try was simple but great, he suckered in the best second rower in the comp. Fast forward and his ill-discipline needlessly gifted a penalty on the 3rd tackle which led to Field waltzing in between two forwards right before half time. I think this was the catalyst for Wigan going in at half time in the way they did. I will wade in on the Wigan first try; Thaler stated "because the ball is then kicked" (when checking for a knock on) but as has been pointed out the rules specifically preclude kicks from the heel. So Thaler is wrong in his assessment but what should he have done? It must be a knock on. Bibby loses control off his arm and must regain control before the ball touches the ground (goalpost/crossbar/opponent). He doesn't. It is that simple. Posters referring to intention or lack of - this is only relevant in determining how play should restart. Deliberate or accidental knock on etc. However he loses control having struck his arm so it should be accidental. School boy stuff from Leeds though not playing to the whistle but it is laughable to think it is anything other than a knock on. Wigan's third try could easily have been given as a knock on too, in fact it probably was. That said, at home, with it going up as a try, roles reversed I would not be happy to see it turned over. Hopefully calls like these are the ones that even themselves out. It does start to feel we have a few in the 'owed' column though. Wigan's fifth try is also questionable; The definition of misconduct (c) drops knees first on to an opponent who is on the ground Tackling knees first it outlawed for obvious reasons. Powell lands knee first onto the forearm of Walker. Walker is on the ground as is the arm that Powell lands on with all his weight. If Walker rolled around like a footballer clutching his arm Powell would get red (not that I condone this but you see players milking). Regardless it is illegal to tackle 'knees first' which is exactly what he did and was rewarded with a try! Playing devils advocate, I think Leeds were lucky not to be penalised more in the ruck when slowing Wigan down. Wigan, especially in the second half really played like a team that were hungry and with their tails up working hard for each other and as I have already said even without getting the rub they would have won.

I think you must have been watching the racing channel, Usain Bolt cannot break 28mph.

I can only think Agar is not keen on moving Briscoe back to the wing given the likelihood of wingers being peppered with bombs all night. Tindall steps up for a baptism of fire. He makes metres for fun in the boys game.

Myler Fusitu'a Newman Bentley Martin Dwyer Five starters and arguably the leagues best impact player missing for game two. It feels like last season. Leeds are without both starting second rowers a wing and probably a centre we might not be as potent down the edges. Dwyer is a big miss as he almost always gets the middle rolling forward and is the catalyst for much of the broken play. I wonder how much playing the majority of last weeks game with 12 and some with 11 has taken out of the players, hopefully not too much. The wind could have the biggest effect - the Met Office suggest that we will still have almost 50mph wind blowing directly down the pitch towards the south stand. All my excuses ready, I am looking forward to it.