Sat 9 Feb: SL: Warrington Wolves v Hull Kingston Rovers KO 3pm

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

I wonder if the view of the touch judge or referee, who must have seen something to issue a yellow card, would be taken into account.

Logically, if a yellow card was given, I accept that a ban shouldn't follow, but in the past that hasn't been the case.

It would be difficult for the touch judge to now state it was bad and deserving of a ban, as that shows they should have red carded him. We have to ignore steve's nonsense about him being a home marquee player so exempt!

But, they will go through the process and if there is evidence of foul play he will get punished.

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, East of the Moon said:

I think the 'high threshold' is Tomkins sustaining severe concussion, how did this happen, any other suggestions?

Never mind implying Maguire is lying, can you be a bit more objective in your judgements....instead of towing the party line?

Do we only ever see concussion from foul play?

[East of the Moon]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Do we only ever see concussion from foul play?

Well as I wrote previously any other suggestions how Tomkins sustained severe concussion?

[Cheshire Setter]

6 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Austin flopped on late to prevent a quick play the ball after a Rovers break. Comfortably a yellow card in its own right without foul play.

Tomkins wasn’t held was he?

[Cheshire Setter]

2 minutes ago, East of the Moon said:

Well as I wrote previously any other suggestions how Tomkins sustained severe concussion?

He was slammed to the floor getting up after he wasn’t held.   So possibly yes.  Could have been head contact but that particular camera angle doesn’t show it.

[Leeds Wire]

Just now, Cheshire Setter said:

Tomkins wasn’t held was he?

Correct.

The penalty seemed to be for a ball steal. Presumably the sin bin was because it was deemed to be a professional foul, preventing a quick play the ball.

I was on that side of the ground and saw nothing in it. In fact, as I stated earlier, it looked like a knock on through primrose and blue specs. 

[Barry Badrinath]

Theres nothing in it, for all the kr hand ringing,  McGuire doesn't react, he's setting up the next play and zero players run in aftwr the tackle to lamp austin. They didnt think it was bad, the ref didnt call anything, the TJ didnt see anything either.

 

Austin got binned because of the injury, Liam moore also had a very loose interpretation of the obstruction ruling yesterday as well.

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, East of the Moon said:

Well as I wrote previously any other suggestions how Tomkins sustained severe concussion?

We see a fair few concussion in RL. Very few are due to use of an elbow, so your assertion that this must be what caused it is an odd one. It is entirely possible that his head hit the ground in the tackle.

But, they will review all the angles they have, and if there is serious foul play, he will get a ban, no issues with that. Eye witnesses stood 60 to 80 metres away are notoriously unreliable though.

[Ullman]

28 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We see a fair few concussion in RL. Very few are due to use of an elbow, so your assertion that this must be what caused it is an odd one. It is entirely possible that his head hit the ground in the tackle.

But, they will review all the angles they have, and if there is serious foul play, he will get a ban, no issues with that. Eye witnesses stood 60 to 80 metres away are notoriously unreliable though.

Having watched the video I'd say it's either that or Austin's thigh that knocks Tomkins out. Austin lands on him with some force but I don't see how anybody can say there was intentional foul play based on what they've seen in that clip.

As you say though, another angle might tell a different story.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Ullman said:

Having watched the video I'd say it's either that or Austin's thigh that knocks Tomkins out. Austin lands on him with some force but I don't see how anybody can say there was intentional foul play based on what they've seen in that clip.

As you say though, another angle might tell a different story.

Indeed, and I've no issues with a ban if he has fouled, just as I supported Westwood getting punished before he had last week.

 

[ELBOWSEYE]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Indeed, and I've no issues with a ban if he has fouled, just as I supported Westwood getting punished before he had last week.

 

I think non tv games have few angles ,the screen at Warrington shows replays and i think its  the same camera's. 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I think non tv games have few angles ,the screen at Warrington shows replays and i think its  the same camera's. 

Hull KR may have a video from a different angle. I suppose we will see.

[Padge]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

Do we only ever see concussion from foul play?

Castey last night went for a concussion check after he messed up a tackle and got his head in the wrong place, totally his fault.

[HKRBob]

When a player is prone and someone comes in hard, it can be legal contact and result in concussion. It can also be illegal contact and the match report with the touch judges input will clear that up, as the camera angle certainly doesn't.

I dont think anyone can use Maguires reaction as evidence either way. His default position is that he has been wronged in some way, so he could have been complaining for a multitude of sins. That said those people who have said that because no Rovers player came in and smacked Austin, it exonerates him in any way frankly need to give their own head a bang with Austin's elbow. 

[stevereed100]

Well said Bob. I was proud of Rovers professional attitude looking aggrieved...Chris Atkin also made his views known,but the team showed restraint.Some teams would just have piled in getting themselves in trouble.

[ELBOWSEYE]

1 hour ago, HKRBob said:

When a player is prone and someone comes in hard, it can be legal contact and result in concussion. It can also be illegal contact and the match report with the touch judges input will clear that up, as the camera angle certainly doesn't.

I dont think anyone can use Maguires reaction as evidence either way. His default position is that he has been wronged in some way, so he could have been complaining for a multitude of sins. That said those people who have said that because no Rovers player came in and smacked Austin, it exonerates him in any way frankly need to give their own head a bang with Austin's elbow. 

Cannot disagree with most things you say. The panel will decide and I won't complain either way. 

Just a side issue can none of your fans spell McGuire name correctly. 

[HKRBob]

9 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Just a side issue can none of your fans spell McGuire name correctly. 

I've only just learned to remove the P from Tompkins name, now another I'm getting wrong!

[Spidey]

Not sure how anybody can come to conclusions by the actions of McGuire. Video inconclusive. Should be sin bin sufficient. He probably did make contact with the head. Needs to watch himself if Warrington want to win anything this year

[Leeds Wire]

What I was going to post before this thread went a bit pear shaped was this: I thought HKR were impressive yesterday. Big strong pack with good carries, McGuire controlling things behind a pack (led by Garbutt) going forward, plus a backline willing to play expansive rugby. A very committed defensive effort too and on another day might have turned us over.  

Ratchford was superb again for us. He seems to be cutting the errors out of his game without losing any of the attacking flair. Austin was immense and he's going to be an absolutely cracking signing. He controlled everything Wire did and was a threat every single time he got the ball. Rovers were hanging off him a lot because it was never clear whether he was going to show and go, kick or pass.  Superb entertainment. 

[chuffer]

4 hours ago, Ullman said:

Having watched the video I'd say it's either that or Austin's thigh that knocks Tomkins out. Austin lands on him with some force but I don't see how anybody can say there was intentional foul play based on what they've seen in that clip.

As you say though, another angle might tell a different story.

Tbf i thought the same, yeh its a flop but is it dirty? Hard to see, doesn't really look that way  

[chuffer]

3 hours ago, HKRBob said:

I dont think anyone can use Maguires reaction as evidence either way. His default position is that he has been wronged in some way

yup, he's always been the same.....proper strumpet

[Brigg Rover]

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 9:50 AM, ELBOWSEYE said:

There are some prima donnas on these forums these days, I am glad he has a bit of mongrel in his play good players usually do, he will have to turn it down a bit because it will hurt Warrington. I have seen enough in 2 games to be confident he will light up SL this season.

If you don't like any rough play you will struggle to support any rugby league team, they all have players who play on the edge and sometimes over it.

That is an interesting take on someone using an elbow on a defenceless player.

Most people would call that cowardly. Maybe this speaks more to you as a person.

[ELBOWSEYE]

6 minutes ago, Brigg Rover said:

That is an interesting take on someone using an elbow on a defenceless player.

Most people would call that cowardly. Maybe this speaks more to you as a person.

You can make childish comments if you wish ,I am a bit more grown up. But the elbow you state was used was not mentioned in your own official club match report. 

[Cheshire Setter]

19 minutes ago, Brigg Rover said:

That is an interesting take on someone using an elbow on a defenceless player.

Most people would call that cowardly. Maybe this speaks more to you as a person.

To be fair, that comment is probably referring to the roughness of the tackle rather than use of the elbow which hasn't been proven yet.

Nothing wrong with legal aggression, and from the video angle we've seen so far that's all it is  - a strong tackle on a player who was getting up to continue running after not being held by the previous tackle.

Of course there may be more to it and we'll know that when we find out whether the touch judge was reporting a late tackle or an elbow.

[Brigg Rover]

1 minute ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

You can make childish comments if you wish ,I am a bit more grown up. But the elbow you state was used was not mentioned in your own official club match report. 

You call my comment childish yet you refer to prima donnas and hinting that people are not tough enough to watch the game if they don't like foul play. I would suggest you maybe the child.