3 Aug: SL: Catalans Dragons v Warrington Wolves (Merged Threads)

[CanadianRugger]

The players on both sides were out of control.  Catalans should have forfeited the match and Warrington should have been deducted two points in the table as well for their part.  1 minute left in the match with Catalans up 30-10 and they decide to repeatedly brawl for 5-10 minutes.  

Both teams deserve to be penalized for it.

[Lowdesert]

38 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

I feel Thaler and Hicks would have put some arrse into it, yes.

Child was lackadaisical for mine. 

We’ll never know.  He certainly didn’t seem to panic.

We don’t know exactly what kicked off the back of the stand fracas either.

[Auntie Linzi Morris]

1 hour ago, Padge said:

Hill was a tool for opting to run the ball and not just take the kick and get the game over with. It was obvious what was going to happen once that decision was taken.

There's been some ###### spouted on this thread but I think you've scored the winner.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, daz39 said:

Bang on, i'd rather spend post match in Perpignan with 30-40 rather than the hundreds who pop up for a game during their pi** up, sorry holiday. Would hate them to hang around in the town and spoil it, mind you 99% of them think Perpignan only has 1 bar and that's in 'the square' 

Yep.  Seen it week after week and then I’ve read comments on here that ‘there’s nowt there’.  There isn’t, around the Castillet.  Half a dozen restaurants.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

Fine

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, and genuinely not being obtuse, but I've never seen someone sent off for just running in and not actually fighting. If that was the case wed have seen 26 red cards the other day!

I try and base my position on precedent, I'm not the one asking for red cards for stripping the ball professional foul which is unprecedented.

But, you're entitled to your view and I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Edit. To add one point. I share your annoyance over the professional foul. I said live that the punishment should be more severe. Personally I'd be cool with a binninh and penalty try, because tbh it was a complete joke.

[Essai Machine]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

This is a bizarre exchange. 

The only evidence available led to Mamo getting a yellow. You have an issue with that despite offering up no evidence to show Mamo doing something.

If you think the decision is wrong, or biased or corrupt, it is on you to offer something up!

 

What's bizarre is you and all the other Wire apologists spending the last 3 days telling us how well behaved and slandered your team and supporters are , when we all witnessed the opposite .

P.S. You still haven't answered my question - Have you ever questioned a TJ's assessment of a forward pass or the onside/offside position of a player ?

 

[redjonn]

I still think the ref handled the game reasonable OK...  right from the first "fighting" incident early in the game. Hill sin-binned, players penalised for speaking back, penalty given for foul play, etc...

People tend to say, if he'd dealt with incidents more strongly then players would learn and control themselves appropriately seeing how ref dealt with things.  Well he was strong right from the off and the first fistie-cuffs well dealt with, with penalties and sin-binning.

So when commentators say he should have controlled the game better... what precisely should he have done... as it was clear the players ignored the various warning, penalties and sin-binning, etc...

So if anyone says he should have controlled better please be precise as to what exactly... then we can sensible debate... instead of a vague he should have done better.... because as I can see early on he did precisely what was required, no if's or buts... as I say he penalised fouls, penalised speaking out of turn,  he sin-binned players right from early on, warned, etc

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Essai Machine said:

 

What's bizarre is you and all the other Wire apologists spending the last 3 days telling us how well behaved and slandered your team and supporters are , when we all witnessed the opposite .

 

 

No I havent. I'll leave you to it if you're gonna make stuff up.

[Teessidewire]

1 hour ago, Essai Machine said:

 

What's bizarre is you and all the other Wire apologists spending the last 3 days telling us how well behaved and slandered your team and supporters are , when we all witnessed the opposite .

P.S. You still haven't answered my question - Have you ever questioned a TJ's assessment of a forward pass or the onside/offside position of a player ?

 

Fully in support of Dave T. No-one has been an apologist, by the way is it a rule on here that you have to answer any question you’re asked? 

[Leeds Wire]

14 hours ago, wackojacko said:

The tweet he's quoting is from Catalans and subsequent to the match.

I know. That’s why I posted it.

Given the utter horse manure they’ve posted since, I’m sorry I gave them the oxygen of publicity. 

The aftermath of an awful evening has turned into a cesspit of online hate and spite.

At least TRL remains largely civilised, as usual.

[Dave T]

Kenny Edwards not guilty.

Williame and Simon won their appeals and can play against Leeds.

Tomkins lost his appeal, McIlorum lost his and his ban was extended to 2 games.

[Leeds Wire]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Kenny Edwards not guilty

I need to lie down.

My RL mates are questioning their affinity to the sport this year. This announcement compounds the feeling for me. 

Its all gone a bit wrong and needs some leadership and PR to bring it round, because the mainstream media will laugh in our collective face at what is going on.

[The Lad]

12 hours ago, Dave T said:

It is a bit embarrassing when you compare to how Adrian Morley and Lee Briers developed as captains as they got older.

Hill always seems frustrated and angry with whoever is in front of him, and tbh I genuinely believe that was his issue on Saturday at the end. He was angry with the fans, the ref, Edward's, the fact the game wasnt abandoned. He was embarrassing.

I am disappointed we havent seen any kind of apology yet.

 

13 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Chris Hill used to be one of my favourite players.

Then he was made captain and I heard him in interviews and (more critically) speaking with the referee and things changed dramatically. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but Warrington wolves family area was up there, I think his actions and a lot of the players actions can be forgiven when you take that into account, if it was my family up there I don't know what I would have done.

[Dunbar]

6 hours ago, The Lad said:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but Warrington wolves family area was up there, I think his actions and a lot of the players actions can be forgiven when you take that into account, if it was my family up there I don't know what I would have done.

As I said earlier, my comments about Hill are based on his time as captain of Warrington rather than the events of Saturday. 

[Dave T]

6 hours ago, SL17 said:

I thought Kenny Edwards had been passed to tribunal? Isn't that on Wednesdays?

No, Tuesdays. Was heard last night.

[wackojacko]

23 hours ago, Tiger Wolf said:

Caralans media are independant from the Catalan club.  I have had comms on twitter regarding their initial reporting of the trouble.  Good that they are looking at the good relationship between two sets of supporters.

 

I meant the tweet from the Dragons that Catalans Media was quoting, not that it's terribly important.

[Barry Badrinath]

11 hours ago, redjonn said:

I still think the ref handled the game reasonable OK...  right from the first "fighting" incident early in the game. Hill sin-binned, players penalised for speaking back, penalty given for foul play, etc...

People tend to say, if he'd dealt with incidents more strongly then players would learn and control themselves appropriately seeing how ref dealt with things.  Well he was strong right from the off and the first fistie-cuffs well dealt with, with penalties and sin-binning.

So when commentators say he should have controlled the game better... what precisely should he have done... as it was clear the players ignored the various warning, penalties and sin-binning, etc...

So if anyone says he should have controlled better please be precise as to what exactly... then we can sensible debate... instead of a vague he should have done better.... because as I can see early on he did precisely what was required, no if's or buts... as I say he penalised fouls, penalised speaking out of turn,  he sin-binned players right from early on, warned, etc

He wasn't strong from the off whatsoever.

 

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, Barry Badrinath said:

He wasn't strong from the off whatsoever.

 

I assume tongue in cheek your vague response - precisely what actions was my query... bear in mindl he penalised and sin binned just after the off.... I guess he should have biffed a couple of players then...

[dkw]

1 hour ago, redjonn said:

I assume tongue in cheek your vague response - precisely what actions was my query... bear in mindl he penalised and sin binned just after the off.... I guess he should have biffed a couple of players then...

He allows players to openly question his every decision and rarely admonishes them for doing so, if anything he talks back in a far too "matey" way to them, setting the tone for the rest of the game.

[Essai Machine]

13 hours ago, Teessidewire said:

Fully in support of Dave T. No-one has been an apologist, by the way is it a rule on here that you have to answer any question you’re asked? 

Quelle surprise , Wire fan supporting Wire fan when your team's embarassed the sport  .

On the other point , no you don't have to answer a question if it undermines your argument . You just lose face .

[Exiled Wiganer]

So, it ended up 2 - 1. From what I saw both McIllorum and Tomkins deserved to be banned. I know it doesn’t work like that, but that feels more “proportionate”. 

By the way, I think it’s a shame that McIllorum and Tomkins have become such miscreants since leaving Wigan. They used to be such lovely lads, whom I would stick up for at length. 

[Tommygilf]

To have 1 player banned by the Match Review Panel after this game seems suspiciously low. 

Especially when you consider 11 u19s players were banned for fighting in a Wigan v Bradford academy game.

Bringing game into disrepute anybody?

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

To have 1 player banned by the Match Review Panel after this game seems suspiciously low. 

Especially when you consider 11 u19s players were banned for fighting in a Wigan v Bradford academy game.

Bringing game into disrepute anybody?

I wonder if they have left it open for the independent panel that are reviewing it, if they had punished certain players now then the review couldnt have also punished them?

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

To have 1 player banned by the Match Review Panel after this game seems suspiciously low. 

Especially when you consider 11 u19s players were banned for fighting in a Wigan v Bradford academy game.

Bringing game into disrepute anybody?

But this is the problem - it was basically a series of big group hugs! That made it hard for the ref to punish anyone, and subsequently the judiciary.

[Lowdesert]

5 minutes ago, dkw said:

I wonder if they have left it open for the independent panel that are reviewing it, if they had punished certain players now then the review couldnt have also punished them?

The RFL will only punish based on their disciplinary rules.  I think what the independent panel are looking at will contribute to whether the Clubs get punished.

Anybody know who’s on this panel?  Paul Cullen’s been mentioned.