Leuluai and Samkins at the RFL Disciplinary...

[Blind side johnny]

1 minute ago, Lowdesert said:

That was the weakest Cumberland throw I’ve ever seen then.  Usually, you got thrown over the hip.  Maybe a Chickenley hike.

 

They used to run slower in them days LD.

[DavidM]

It was a blatant potentially dangerous, cheap trip with a hand put out to try and get away with it . Can’t believe the VR didn’t tip hicks off about this and the knees in the head as they’ve been giving their input on foul play  all year . Those were yellows minimum , fulfilling that criteria , but it looked like the GF as a spectacle brought its own rules 

[Lowdesert]

1 minute ago, Blind side johnny said:

They used to run slower in them days LD.

. True.  Bet ST was bricking it as he walked away though.  That was a nailed on yellow for me, but they rarely give trips now - even those where they fly in with the feet to prevent a try.

[Jim Prendle]

Our players very rarely get banned, as we have the RFL in our pocket, so I'm surprised at this one.

I honestly don't kow why people even enter into discussions about it. Wigan players are untouchable, you are all aware of that fact, so why bother wasting your breath on it?

[Jim Prendle]

9 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

I thought there was a big difference in the Tomkins/Charnley incidents.

Yep. One was a Wigan player, and the other one wasn't.

[Rupert Prince]

10 hours ago, 7723 said:

Nothing for Charnley?

Agreed, Tomkins fouls were just that... yellow cards. Indeed the so called 'trip' was just a Cumberland throw as commentator said. 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

9 hours ago, Jim Prendle said:

Yep. One was a Wigan player, and the other one wasn't.

If you’re suggesting that there is some sort of Wigan conspiracy that their players get punished more than others, you’re pie tinted spectacles are exactly that, made from pie. 

 

[Jim Prendle]

1 hour ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

If you’re suggesting that there is some sort of Wigan conspiracy that their players get punished more than others, you’re pie tinted spectacles are exactly that, made from pie. 

 

No, I'm suggesting that other people seem to be of the opinion that fouls are always worse when committed by Wigan players.

I also suggested earlier that it doesn't matter as everyone knows that Wigan have the RFL in their poclet, so it doesn't really matter what our players do as they will always get away with it anyway.

However, as your irony sensor seems to be completely broken, you probably missed it.

[Blind side johnny]

1 minute ago, Jim Prendle said:

No, I'm suggesting that other people seem to be of the opinion that fouls are always worse when committed by Wigan players.

I also suggested earlier that it doesn't matter as everyone knows that Wigan have the RFL in their poclet, so it doesn't really matter what our players do as they will always get away with it anyway.

However, as your irony sensor seems to be completely broken, you probably missed it.

Your talents are wasted on here Jim.

[Jim Prendle]

2 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Your talents are wasted on here Jim.

You're still my hero Johnny.

[GeordieSaint]

12 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

No, I'm suggesting that other people seem to be of the opinion that fouls are always worse when committed by Wigan players.

I can’t speak for others but my opinion wasn’t made my what shirt each player was wearing. I genuinely think Tomkins’ knee was different - he dropped his knees and lead with them. Charnley didn’t. 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

22 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

No, I'm suggesting that other people seem to be of the opinion that fouls are always worse when committed by Wigan players.

I also suggested earlier that it doesn't matter as everyone knows that Wigan have the RFL in their poclet, so it doesn't really matter what our players do as they will always get away with it anyway.

However, as your irony sensor seems to be completely broken, you probably missed it.

No, I just couldn’t be bothered to read through the whole thread. 

I don’t think that’s the case at all, I think people’s angst is with the fact the game was refereed differently as it was a final, rather than who the player was that committed the foul or who he plays for. Well, most normal people will follow that thought process. 

[Jim Prendle]

1 minute ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

No, I just couldn’t be bothered to read through the whole thread. 

I don’t think that’s the case at all, I think people’s angst is with the fact the game was refereed differently as it was a final, rather than who the player was that committed the foul or who he plays for. Well, most normal people will follow that thought process. 

Well, I guess that all depends on how you catagorise "Normal" doesn't it?

[Oliver Clothesoff]

2 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

Well, I guess that all depends on how you catagorise "Normal" doesn't it?

Having watched enough Rugby League, normal isn’t a thing here, is it?

[Harry Stottle]

17 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Agreed, Tomkins fouls were just that... yellow cards. Indeed the so called 'trip' was just a Cumberland throw as commentator said. 

Were you at the game or did you watch it on tv or have played it back since?

The commentator may have made a remark re it being a 'Cumberland Throw' but the most telling comment was from the referee himself in his adjudication to the player and or to his captain, he quite clearly stated "the first contact was with the foot" irrespective of Tomkins hands being placed on the player "the first contact was with the foot" describes a trip, that is not a 'Cumberland Throw'.

I personally don't give a flying one whether Tomkins was let off, yellow carded or sent off, as I stated on another thread it is an observation over a few years that in the showpiece of the game that is the Grand Final, whoever the referee has been, they have not been as strict in their rulings or as readily to punish player's as they have done in regular season games, with the obvious exception of the Ben Flower incident when the referee had no alternative but to dismiss him there has not been one yellow card shown in a total of 20 GF's, is it a directive the refs are performing under?

FWIW, I don't think there was anything malicious or done with intent by both Tomkins and Charnley with the head contacts.

[Rupert Prince]

48 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Were you at the game or did you watch it on tv or have played it back since?

The commentator may have made a remark re it being a 'Cumberland Throw' but the most telling comment was from the referee himself in his adjudication to the player and or to his captain, he quite clearly stated "the first contact was with the foot" irrespective of Tomkins hands being placed on the player "the first contact was with the foot" describes a trip, that is not a 'Cumberland Throw'.

I personally don't give a flying one whether Tomkins was let off, yellow carded or sent off, as I stated on another thread it is an observation over a few years that in the showpiece of the game that is the Grand Final, whoever the referee has been, they have not been as strict in their rulings or as readily to punish player's as they have done in regular season games, with the obvious exception of the Ben Flower incident when the referee had no alternative but to dismiss him there has not been one yellow card shown in a total of 20 GF's, is it a directive the refs are performing under?

FWIW, I don't think there was anything malicious or done with intent by both Tomkins and Charnley with the head contacts.

Since well were referees remarks, 'telling'...?  Everyone's opinions about refs on here are a starter for 10. It did not strike me as a trip.

Various fouls were given and none were yellow or red cards. It was not a dirty game.  If anyone was lucky in the semis, it was Gale.

In the circumstances it was interesting that none were given for laying on. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Since well were referees remarks, 'telling'...?  Everyone's opinions about refs on here are a starter for 10. It did not strike me as a trip.

Various fouls were given and none were yellow or red cards. It was not a dirty game.  If anyone was lucky in the semis, it was Gale.

In the circumstances it was interesting that none were given for laying on. 

Those words were spoken by the referee, did you hear them Rupert? 

Whichever way you want to term it a leg outstrecthed to make contact with the legs of an opposing player with no contact from the arms at that moment is a trip, as I stated I am not bothered what the ref gave. 

If there are any of those techies who are capable of doing those freeze frame pic's I would like to see it on here depicting the precise moment the foot made contact, it should make for interesting discussion.

[Rupert Prince]

11 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Those words were spoken by the referee, did you hear them Rupert? 

Whichever way you want to term it a leg outstrecthed to make contact with the legs of an opposing player with no contact from the arms at that moment is a trip, as I stated I am not bothered what the ref gave. 

If there are any of those techies who are capable of doing those freeze frame pic's I would like to see it on here depicting the precise moment the foot made contact, it should make for interesting discussion.

It was called as a foul. I can live with that. It was not given a card, I can live with that. I can live with the other fouls not carded as well. It was not a trip in the sense that we call a red card.  

It's par for the course to agree to disagree with refs and suit everyone to suit one or the other. I'm not criticising the ref particularly re. this game.

I suspect that there must have been a few close calls for laying on but no cards. Both sides must have been cute.

[ivans82]

The real point of both players getting one match bans is that they are saying both Mr Hicks and the touchline official should now be deemed unable or unfit to referee another final as they failed to act on either incident correctly .So i take it we will not be seeing Mr Hicks in charge of another final for the foreseeable..Wasn`t bothered who won the final but thought both incidents deserved a yellow card at most .Tomkins though  not being considered for selection against France as the rest of the Grand Final players weren`t shouldn`t be able to use that as his one match ban , it makes the whole thing a complete farce .

[Blind side johnny]

9 minutes ago, ivans82 said:

The real point of both players getting one match bans is that they are saying both Mr Hicks and the touchline official should now be deemed unable or unfit to referee another final as they failed to act on either incident correctly .So i take it we will not be seeing Mr Hicks in charge of another final for the foreseeable..

Palpable nonsense. They are saying that, given the opportunity to study both incidents repeatedly and in slow-motion, they beieve that the one the spot judgments made by both may be in error. If that were a case for dropping people then there would be no players on the pitch, would there?

[ELBOWSEYE]

Interesting reading a few comments on Tomkins trip as a Cumberland throw. Well the people who are making them have never been tackled using the Cumberland throw it was a deadly tackle which left the attacker defenceless, nothing like what happened in the GF. Also the Cumberland throw was outlawed years ago. 

[DavidM]

13 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Palpable nonsense. They are saying that, given the opportunity to study both incidents repeatedly and in slow-motion, they beieve that the one the spot judgments made by both may be in error. If that were a case for dropping people then there would be no players on the pitch, would there?

But the knees incident was clear on first view  , was seen and described by Hicks in the audio at the time . And his judgement was penalty . Surely they are saying he got that wrong and a more severe sanction should have been applied ?

[ivans82]

If both players have received one match bans , the panel obviously feel they should both have been sent off .We have seen many times on televised games that an official off the pitch gives guidance to the onfield referee after watching incidents back and we have seen many red cards given minutes after the incident . To get 2 such decisions wrong in the biggest match of the season must seriously bring into question the way it was handled .

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, ivans82 said:

If both players have received one match bans , the panel obviously feel they should both have been sent off .We have seen many times on televised games that an official off the pitch gives guidance to the onfield referee after watching incidents back and we have seen many red cards given minutes after the incident . To get 2 such decisions wrong in the biggest match of the season must seriously bring into question the way it was handled .

This was sort of my point earlier though - the authorities don't want to see these players sent off during games - that is quite clear. I'm not sure how many bans we have seen this year, but I would expect an average of 3 or 4 per week in SL, yet we haven't seen c100 sending offs. And I'm not sure the game would be better for doing that either, hence why I think we need to maybe rethink how we deal with this.

[JohnM]

As far as i can see from the disciplinary section of the RFL web site, a decision has been made to charge both players with one offence each, each offence carrying a one match suspension if proven.  Have I missed tbe section that shows they have actually been suspended, and if so, csn someone post the link?