Danny McGuire crocked

[clement]

Leeds Rhinos' bid for a fourth successive engage Super League title has suffered a major blow with the loss of stand-off Danny McGuire.

The 27-year-old sustained a knee injury in the closing stages of the champions' 27-26 play-off victory over Wigan on Sunday and scans have revealed he needs to undergo surgery.

He has been ruled out until the start of next season, which also represents a big blow for England's prospects in the Four Nations Series in Australia and New Zealand.

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/ne..._Nightlead.html

With his current form I think this is a big blow for Leeds and England.

Who will play 6 for England, Tomkins I think with Widdop at full back then Eastmond and Myler to cover 7.

leeds will miss him.england wont.dont forget it's nz and australia where up against.

[scotthouston2008]

All this Danny McGuire is a cheat stuff is ridiculous. Is every player who commits an offence and gives a penalty away a cheat? Will they all be castigated in the same manner? He pulled somebody back off the ball! Wow that is terrible and has never before been done by any team. For goodness sake grow up people.

He commited an offence a penalty was given (for either that one or a perfectly legitimate tackle by Donald on Richards) and Wigan got the chance to win the game which unfortunately for them they couldn't take. If this had occurred in the 16th minute and not the 80th people wouldn't even be talking about it.

It's not nice to see any player suffering a serious injury (how foolish do the "he was faking being injured" brigade feel) and as an English rugby league fan I'm disappointed he is as our already slim 4 nations chances have further diminished

great summary. as a player myself you will do anything to win.

[Kenilworth Tiger]

Does Justin Morgan apologise for his comments or Terry Matterson for his.They are two of the most vocal coaches in Super League.

Life goes on.

Is that really the perception?

[Dave T]

All this Danny McGuire is a cheat stuff is ridiculous. Is every player who commits an offence and gives a penalty away a cheat? Will they all be castigated in the same manner? He pulled somebody back off the ball! Wow that is terrible and has never before been done by any team. For goodness sake grow up people.

He commited an offence a penalty was given (for either that one or a perfectly legitimate tackle by Donald on Richards) and Wigan got the chance to win the game which unfortunately for them they couldn't take. If this had occurred in the 16th minute and not the 80th people wouldn't even be talking about it.

It's not nice to see any player suffering a serious injury (how foolish do the "he was faking being injured" brigade feel) and as an English rugby league fan I'm disappointed he is as our already slim 4 nations chances have further diminished

Excellent post.

[terrywebbisgod]

Is that really the perception?

Sorry, for vocal,I meant telling it how it is and not keeping quiet so they don't get a fine from the RFL.

[GIANTSTRIDES]

All this Danny McGuire is a cheat stuff is ridiculous. Is every player who commits an offence and gives a penalty away a cheat? Will they all be castigated in the same manner? He pulled somebody back off the ball! Wow that is terrible and has never before been done by any team. For goodness sake grow up people.

He commited an offence a penalty was given (for either that one or a perfectly legitimate tackle by Donald on Richards) and Wigan got the chance to win the game which unfortunately for them they couldn't take. If this had occurred in the 16th minute and not the 80th people wouldn't even be talking about it.

It's not nice to see any player suffering a serious injury (how foolish do the "he was faking being injured" brigade feel) and as an English rugby league fan I'm disappointed he is as our already slim 4 nations chances have further diminished

Nice to keep reading the odd post that makes sense.

[StevieM13]

Unlike his coach claiming that something nasty had happened to him in back play after he had made the illegal tackle. Haven't heard an apology for that yet have we?

McLennan said he wanted the footage looking at because he thought something might have gone on. Leuluai ran fort yards at speed to stand over McGuire shouting at him. How about an apology from Stuart Cummoings for some of the terrible performances from referees? Perhaps an explanation of how Alibert thought Tomkins had pushed out with his knee, or the farce at the end? Maybe why Bentham did not send Manu off? Or maybe why he did not sin bin Peter Fox? Or why Thaler robbed Crusaders of a player for 10 minutes?

[Blind side johnny]

It always used to be said in league: "If you aren't chaeting, you aren't trying."

Name one, just one, pro RL player who never cheats.

Sorry about DM's injury, but it will affect Leeds far more than England.

[StevieM13]

All this Danny McGuire is a cheat stuff is ridiculous. Is every player who commits an offence and gives a penalty away a cheat? Will they all be castigated in the same manner? He pulled somebody back off the ball! Wow that is terrible and has never before been done by any team. For goodness sake grow up people.

He commited an offence a penalty was given (for either that one or a perfectly legitimate tackle by Donald on Richards) and Wigan got the chance to win the game which unfortunately for them they couldn't take. If this had occurred in the 16th minute and not the 80th people wouldn't even be talking about it.

It's not nice to see any player suffering a serious injury (how foolish do the "he was faking being injured" brigade feel) and as an English rugby league fan I'm disappointed he is as our already slim 4 nations chances have further diminished

Tomkins still won the cheat count 2-1 on the night

McGuire is a huge loss for Leeds and England.

Let's not forget it was not an elimination play off, Wigan still have another shot at home against a side that finished 7th. And Richards missed three pots at goal and Wigan lost a 14 point lead.

[RP London]

All this Danny McGuire is a cheat stuff is ridiculous. Is every player who commits an offence and gives a penalty away a cheat? Will they all be castigated in the same manner? He pulled somebody back off the ball! Wow that is terrible and has never before been done by any team. For goodness sake grow up people.

He commited an offence a penalty was given (for either that one or a perfectly legitimate tackle by Donald on Richards) and Wigan got the chance to win the game which unfortunately for them they couldn't take. If this had occurred in the 16th minute and not the 80th people wouldn't even be talking about it.

It's not nice to see any player suffering a serious injury (how foolish do the "he was faking being injured" brigade feel) and as an English rugby league fan I'm disappointed he is as our already slim 4 nations chances have further diminished

good post... and i know i will get castigated for this bit but... was there a penaltyu given against him for this.. i thought it was for the late tackle on Pat Richards?

There are some angles of the McGuire "Challenge" that look as though he is already on his way down and he is pushing/pulling carmont becuase of it not the other way round... i;m not saying he didnt cheat but can anyone tell me if the video ref decided that was the pen as as i say i thought it was for the late on Pat Richards and no decision swas made on the McGuire incident.

[Dave T]

good post... and i know i will get castigated for this bit but... was there a penaltyu given against him for this.. i thought it was for the late tackle on Pat Richards?

There are some angles of the McGuire "Challenge" that look as though he is already on his way down and he is pushing/pulling carmont becuase of it not the other way round... i;m not saying he didnt cheat but can anyone tell me if the video ref decided that was the pen as as i say i thought it was for the late on Pat Richards and no decision swas made on the McGuire incident.

No penalty was given for McGuire's challenge, although this may simply have been due to the fact that the VR decided to allow advantage and decided there was a 2nd offence in a more beneficial spot to Wigan.

[RP London]

No penalty was given for McGuire's challenge, although this may simply have been due to the fact that the VR decided to allow advantage and decided there was a 2nd offence in a more beneficial spot to Wigan.

oh i agree that was a possiblity but we dont actually seem to know what the opinion on the actual incident was.. people are saying he did this but i could make a strong argument on certain angles that he was already on his way down and as you do when you fall he put his hand out.. (carmont taking a bit of a dive himself perhaps.. or that a falling mcguire grabbed hs shirt in pain etc etc etc) its certainly not clear cut in my mind.

[Dave T]

oh i agree that was a possiblity but we dont actually seem to know what the opinion on the actual incident was.. people are saying he did this but i could make a strong argument on certain angles that he was already on his way down and as you do when you fall he put his hand out.. (carmont taking a bit of a dive himself perhaps.. or that a falling mcguire grabbed hs shirt in pain etc etc etc) its certainly not clear cut in my mind.

Your original post made me think more about this.

If they watched it and decided that McGuire's challenge was a professional foul, but then agreed to in effect play on as Wigan were still on the attack and gained a further advantage then wouldn't that negate the foul from McGuire ie. he wouldn't be able to be binned?

I suppose it is like if somebody pulls somebody back but the team then goes on to score, the offender does not then get binned too. I wonder whether it was a case of one or the other, ie. you can't give advantage and the penalty in the Leeds half and sinbin McGuire. If you were going to bin McGuire, I wonder whether the penalty would have to have been given in Wigan's own half.

It would be very interesting to get Cummings official stance on this one.

[StevieM13]

No penalty was given for McGuire's challenge, although this may simply have been due to the fact that the VR decided to allow advantage and decided there was a 2nd offence in a more beneficial spot to Wigan.

The touchjudge came on to let Alibert know he thought the tackle by Donald on Richards was late. This was after Alibert had given the scrum and feed to Leeds for Richards kicking the ball into touch.

In my opinion Donald was committed to the tackle on Richards and there was no penalty. Richards had no chance of regathering the ball because it went out of play just a few yards from where he kicked it.

As the referee had as good a view of the incident as the touch judge and he saw no penalty, I don't see why it was referred to the video referee. Watching the video at full speed it's quite clear Donald did not make a late tackle.

As the offence was not against the ball carrier, the penalty should have been on the Wigan 30 where McGuire tugged at Carmon't shirt. Moving it to any other point would be entirely subjective and guesswork.

Of course we will probably never know what the process was and who made the decision because Stuart Cummings and his match officials are completely unaccountable.

[Dave T]

The touchjudge came on to let Alibert know he thought the tackle by Donald on Richards was late. This was after Alibert had given the scrum and feed to Leeds for Richards kicking the ball into touch.

In my opinion Donald was committed to the tackle on Richards and there was no penalty. Richards had no chance of regathering the ball because it went out of play just a few yards from where he kicked it.

As the referee had as good a view of the incident as the touch judge and he saw no penalty, I don't see why it was referred to the video referee. Watching the video at full speed it's quite clear Donald did not make a late tackle.

As the offence was not against the ball carrier, the penalty should have been on the Wigan 30 where McGuire tugged at Carmon't shirt. Moving it to any other point would be entirely subjective and guesswork.

Of course we will probably never know what the process was and who made the decision because Stuart Cummings and his match officials are completely unaccountable.

You can hear the linesman say he thought it was late, and Alibert said he thought it was fine - as it was a crucial stage, he rightly asked the VR to have a check. The VR then made the decision that Donald had tackled Richards late. I agree with you that it was a harsh call, and the slow-mo replays don't help with these calls.

Whether we agree with it or not, the call was that Donald's tackle was late, and based on that decision, the penalty was in exactly the right position (right down to Alibert making Richards move a metre back at the last second).

[StevieM13]

You can hear the linesman say he thought it was late, and Alibert said he thought it was fine - as it was a crucial stage, he rightly asked the VR to have a check. The VR then made the decision that Donald had tackled Richards late. I agree with you that it was a harsh call, and the slow-mo replays don't help with these calls.

Whether we agree with it or not, the call was that Donald's tackle was late, and based on that decision, the penalty was in exactly the right position (right down to Alibert making Richards move a metre back at the last second).

Is the video referee there to make a split decision call though? Surely if the ref has seen the same incident and deemed nothing wrong the video ref should not come into it? I always thought the video ref was there because for example the ref possibly hasn't seen something that may have happened, e.g ball groundings or foul play etc. In this case he was so sure he gave the scrum and feed right away, and in my opinion it's a subjective dicision on the late tackle so should not have been changed by the video referee.

[sallywt]

You can hear the linesman say he thought it was late, and Alibert said he thought it was fine - as it was a crucial stage, he rightly asked the VR to have a check. The VR then made the decision that Donald had tackled Richards late. I agree with you that it was a harsh call, and the slow-mo replays don't help with these calls.

Whether we agree with it or not, the call was that Donald's tackle was late, and based on that decision, the penalty was in exactly the right position (right down to Alibert making Richards move a metre back at the last second).

You always give whatever is the greatest advantage to the non offending team. In this case the penalty was given for the second offence. The reason play was not stopped at the time was because advantage has to be allowed to see if an advantage is gained by the non offending team. You can also hear Thierry asking the VR for clarification, which according to the protocols we all work by and agreed by the SL coaches he is entirely at that point entitled to do.

As for SteveiM13's comment about the sin bin for Crusaders robbing them of a player, the rules are plain and simple that any delay of the 20m restart is an automatic sin bin.

Bentham did not send Manu off as it was not a sending off offence as has been shown by the video review panel. He did not sin bin Peter Fox because contrary to popular belief slowing down the ptb is not an automatic sin bin and there is no such thing as a "professional foul", it's another myth put about by tv commentators. The penalty was the correct decision. There are only 2 occasions when an automatic sin bin is allowed and that is a deliberate delay to a 20m restart as in the case of the Crusaders and a late challenge on the kicker.

Sorry, but can't remember the particular Tomkins incident you are talking about so can't possibly comment.

[Dave T]

You always give whatever is the greatest advantage to the non offending team. In this case the penalty was given for the second offence. The reason play was not stopped at the time was because advantage has to be allowed to see if an advantage is gained by the non offending team. You can also hear Thierry asking the VR for clarification, which according to the protocols we all work by and agreed by the SL coaches he is entirely at that point entitled to do.

Thanks, I am comfortable with all this, my only question outstanding is whether McGuire could have been sinbinned in the circumstances or whether this was in effect 'cancelled' out by the fact that Wigan were given this 'greater' advantage.

Cheers in advance.

[Dave T]

Is the video referee there to make a split decision call though? Surely if the ref has seen the same incident and deemed nothing wrong the video ref should not come into it? I always thought the video ref was there because for example the ref possibly hasn't seen something that may have happened, e.g ball groundings or foul play etc. In this case he was so sure he gave the scrum and feed right away, and in my opinion it's a subjective dicision on the late tackle so should not have been changed by the video referee.

I believe the VR can give advice to the ref on whatever the ref asks him to. As this was a crucial stage of the game, asking the VR was the right thing to do IMHO.

As you say it was a subjective decision, the commentators didn't all agree, the refereeing team didn't all agree and we certainly don't all agree on here, but Alibert was right to refer it if he had the chance to. I actually thought Alibert kept his cool really well here, in what was possibly one of the toughest moments of the year for a ref.

[RP London]

I believe the VR can give advice to the ref on whatever the ref asks him to. As this was a crucial stage of the game, asking the VR was the right thing to do IMHO.

As you say it was a subjective decision, the commentators didn't all agree, the refereeing team didn't all agree and we certainly don't all agree on here, but Alibert was right to refer it if he had the chance to. I actually thought Alibert kept his cool really well here, in what was possibly one of the toughest moments of the year for a ref.

couldnt agree more thought alibert did a great job given the circumstances..

He was pretty sure of one thing, the touchy seemed pretty sure of the other (in the same way he may be sur of a grounding in the try decision but the ref is not) and so he sent it to the VR.. correct decision.

I am not sure about the late tackle myself and if it was my decision i wouldnt have given it but then i;m not asked (which is a shame i always think )

[petero]

Your original post made me think more about this.

If they watched it and decided that McGuire's challenge was a professional foul, but then agreed to in effect play on as Wigan were still on the attack and gained a further advantage then wouldn't that negate the foul from McGuire ie. he wouldn't be able to be binned?

I suppose it is like if somebody pulls somebody back but the team then goes on to score, the offender does not then get binned too. I wonder whether it was a case of one or the other, ie. you can't give advantage and the penalty in the Leeds half and sinbin McGuire. If you were going to bin McGuire, I wonder whether the penalty would have to have been given in Wigan's own half.

It would be very interesting to get Cummings official stance on this one.

Tell you what, after reading and trying to follow all the various implications involved in that , I cannot help but think that we ought to return to the days of an Clay or Thompson referreeing, when decisions were made on their's and their TJs assumptions and no one else was involved or more importantly, expected to be.

This " we have the technology so why not use it" syndrome has frankly gone beyond it's limitations.

So much so that the Aussie commentators, who incidentally, speak a little more clearly not to mention objectively, upon this subject are noticeably becoming quite critical of the entire VR system.

I find agreement with them on that as I personally believe that as with all items such as this the controlling element of those that grab it is never ending and, the need to go ever further is always paramount in their beliefs.

[StevieM13]

You always give whatever is the greatest advantage to the non offending team. In this case the penalty was given for the second offence. The reason play was not stopped at the time was because advantage has to be allowed to see if an advantage is gained by the non offending team. You can also hear Thierry asking the VR for clarification, which according to the protocols we all work by and agreed by the SL coaches he is entirely at that point entitled to do.

As for SteveiM13's comment about the sin bin for Crusaders robbing them of a player, the rules are plain and simple that any delay of the 20m restart is an automatic sin bin.

Bentham did not send Manu off as it was not a sending off offence as has been shown by the video review panel. He did not sin bin Peter Fox because contrary to popular belief slowing down the ptb is not an automatic sin bin and there is no such thing as a "professional foul", it's another myth put about by tv commentators. The penalty was the correct decision. There are only 2 occasions when an automatic sin bin is allowed and that is a deliberate delay to a 20m restart as in the case of the Crusaders and a late challenge on the kicker.

Sorry, but can't remember the particular Tomkins incident you are talking about so can't possibly comment.

Alibert did not give the second offence because there was not one to penalise. Alibert signalled the scrum straight away and he had a better view of it than the touch judge who was miles behind.

In my opinion neither Alibert or the touchjudge saw the offence by McGuire, just like hardly anyone else. Hence, no advantage was being played by the referee. If Alibert had seen it why did he call a scrum instead of going back to the Wigan 30 or award it himself under the greater advantage rule you say exists?

Alibert did not see the McGuire foul or think that Donald made a late tackle, but Wigan were awarded a penalty on the Rhinos 40 instead of the Wigan 30 where the only offence took place. You say Alibert asks Bentham for clarification, but of what exactly. i didn't hear Alibert ask Bentham to check if Donald made a late tackle, so who decided it was a penalty? If Alibert has ruled there was nothing wrong, surely that can't be over-ruled because isn't the decision of the referee final. Alibert had already given the scrum because in his opinion there was no late tackle.

What you have described is the video referee telling Alibert to award a penalty for something Alibert did not ask him to look at and did not think was a penalty anyway.. What are the protocols you mention and where can we find the rules for what video referees can and can't do in the course of a game?

As for the review panel, are these the same people that said Buderus performed a spear tackle when he did nothing of the sort?? Willie Manu flattened Cockayne with a high shot that was worse than anything Buderus did. The same that have seen no wrong with tackles like that by Coley at Headingley.

Is delaying a 20m restart an automatic sin bin? How does what Fox did, which was to deliberately take away an in play advantage, not merit a sin bin? There seems to have been a drop off in sin binning charges on kickers, see Loughlin on Robinosn at Murrayfield, and the ref no longer calls kicker clear, which was all the rage earlier in the season.

[Allan Marsden]

Penalty Try

[Dave T]

What you have described is the video referee telling Alibert to award a penalty for something Alibert did not ask him to look at and did not think was a penalty anyway.. What are the protocols you mention and where can we find the rules for what video referees can and can't do in the course of a game?

No, Alibert clearly asked about the late tackle, as the touch judge claimed there was one, and Alibert didn't think it was (I agree with him) but the VR felt it was late.

You are probably right that they missed the original offence - or the ref left that incident to the TJ's as is usually the case, and the TJ came on for the later offence.

[StevieM13]

No, Alibert clearly asked about the late tackle, as the touch judge claimed there was one, and Alibert didn't think it was (I agree with him) but the VR felt it was late.

You are probably right that they missed the original offence - or the ref left that incident to the TJ's as is usually the case, and the TJ came on for the later offence.

It was so not a late tackle, assuming that this is what Bentham gave the penalty for, that even Clarke sid it was not a penalty!! As we agreed that neither the touchjudge or Alibert saw the McGuire foul and that it was not a late tackle by Donald, did Bentham award a penalty for something he was not asked to check? We ought to be told!!