Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Red Willow

No Charge for Clubb

Recommended Posts

Must admit I am somewhat surprised the elbow to the head wasn't deemed worthy of a caution if an on filed pen should have been awarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seemed very similar to an incident that Tom Lineham got banned for (on Regan Grace) earlier this year.

I'm surprised and disappointed that an attempted blunt attack to the head on a player in a vulnerable position hands avoided censure.

We talk about player welfare...but only when it suits.

  • Haha 1

Twitter: @TrylineBlog 
Latest Blog: International Wrap #6 - From Wayne's world to Wane's world? - https://thetryline.blogspot.com/2019/11/international-wrap-6-from-waynes-world.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an utter disgrace. An attack to the head after a player has scored. What does it say to other players who want to remove another team’s star player? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I thought it looked accidental. Committed to stopping the try, tried to plant his hand on the floor to brace for impact but caught the player with his elbow in the process.

Didn't look intentional at all to me.

  • Like 4

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

To be honest, I thought it looked accidental. Committed to stopping the try, tried to plant his hand on the floor to brace for impact but caught the player with his elbow in the process.

Didn't look intentional at all to me.

Have you ever thought of Specsavers ?

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

To be honest, I thought it looked accidental. Committed to stopping the try, tried to plant his hand on the floor to brace for impact but caught the player with his elbow in the process.

Didn't look intentional at all to me.

Thats how it looked to me. I could not see anything in it at all.   I have two eyes not one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief. The try had been scored. In that case, there was no need to come in late at all. Especially not with an elbow to the head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Absolute disgrace , just what defence could they have produced ?

I've just looked at it again and its a clearly innocuous tackle. Clubb attempted to tackle Hastings and fell on him across his backside if anything.

There was nothing late, nothing high nothing careless and nothing intentional. It was a tackle. And in the real world players don't go running around in slow motion... unless they are in Sapporo.

Rabbiting on about a "disgrace" is just a joke. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was an attack to the head whether international or not. The disciplinary said it was worthy of a penalty. That means it should have been an 8 point try as a minimum. But it was Wigan, so it was ok.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way on earth was he stopping Hastings from scoring , he was much too late , he could have easily pulled out of the ' flop ' , but he chose not to , very not ' like him ' to do that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

I've just looked at it again and its a clearly innocuous tackle. Clubb attempted to tackle Hastings and fell on him across his backside if anything.

There was nothing late, nothing high nothing careless and nothing intentional. It was a tackle. And in the real world players don't go running around in slow motion... unless they are in Sapporo.

Rabbiting on about a "disgrace" is just a joke. 

I didn't realise Robert Hicks frequented this forum. You're right about nothing careless but it was late and intentional. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why then, , given the incontrovertible proof of guilt presented by the neutrals on here, did the clueless, ignorant and inexperienced  disciplinary panel reach the decision they did?  I mean, why did they decide to ignore the truth as presented by someone watching on a 9 inch monochrome 405 line TV on a desert island? 🤔.... 😊😊😊


Four legs good - two legs bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Maybe take off the Leigh-tinted glasses and you'll see it for what it was.

Even if he takes those off, the fog of envy will still render his vision cloudy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Maybe take off the Leigh-tinted glasses and you'll see it for what it was.

Glasses no,monocle definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Maybe take off the Leigh-tinted glasses and you'll see it for what it was.

FFS Wellsy that's a sweet one winging its way from from far east, and I am not siding with a fellow club fan, it is the arrogance and impertinence of that statement from you, whether you are right or wrong with the actions of Clubb just who do you think you are casting insults because someone has a different opinion than yours!

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s one group of people convinced it was a diabolical challenge and another convinced it was accidental. Surely that proves it’s not clear it was one thing or the other, and that perhaps a panel whose job it is to review this sort of thing might be best places to judge? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were stood right behind the goalpost’s and Clubb could have easily missed putting his elbow/arm to Jackson Hastings head just as Jackson Hastings did miss George Williams when Williams was scoring his try.

The incident to my mind should have been  penalised and contact with the head should have resulted in a penalty try, plus a sin bin ,based on the other similar incidents we see on a regular basis.

Robert Hicks seemed to be more  concerned with his microphone/earpiece etc than he was with the actual match itself.

The match review panel are as inconsistent as ever and it is this inconsistency that gets the fans backs up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are also the follow up incidents,one of which resulted in an eye injury to Jackson Hastings,involving Clubb.

Apparently the camera didn't catch all of the incident so Clubb in the clear.

All good then.Super,Super League. 


     Born - didn't ask. Dying - didn't argue                                 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🤣,  it's funny seeing people comment on him not getting a ban because he's a Wigan player - Not just on here, but on social media. But then in the same post, so many of them are comparing it with Partington getting a ban for tapping someone on the head last week. It's almost as if they forgot he's also a Wigan player.

Watching it live, it didn't look like anything - So many people saying he connected with his elbow. I don't think it looked like his elbow touched his head in the end, his forearm did, but it didn't seem to be intentional.

No idea about the eye incident, only saw Clubb and Hastings come together while the game was carrying on, the camera never went to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s certainly a strange tackling technique. It’s nowhere as clear cut as Lineham’s attack on Regan Grace or Gareth Raynor (IIRC) on Sam Tomkins. 

There’s probably not quite enough to ban him, there’s probably enough to warn him of his future conduct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The match review panel are as inconsistent as ever and it is this inconsistency that gets the fans backs up.

Well, I suppose the discipline decisions could be handed over to the forum kangaroo court rather than sticking with the outmoded and ridiculous idea of a panel of experts reviewing the actual evidence. 


Four legs good - two legs bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MRP are supposed to be sufficiently well up to speed on the sport to be able to make decisions based on the evidence IE Video evidence of actual events in this case.

On numerous occasions over the years this panel of experts have, in the view of many people, including coaches, former players, and commentators have reached a decision that is widely different from a similar incident that resulted bans, fines, sin bins etc.

The fans are confused and are not asking for a "Kangaroo Court" scenario they just want consistency on a regular basis.

Its a bit like the "Stupid Woman" comment in Parliament, millions of viewers saw the incident and made up their own minds of the actual evidence, the the "world renowned" experts came up with their own interpretation of what was said IE That they could not be sure.

I know which experts I would Believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...