Disciplinary

[Dave T]

15 hours ago, JohnM said:

Bearing in mind that though the forum is the place for discussions, it's the ref and disciplinary that makes the decisions...on the evidence.

And the evidence so far has already seen him get 2 matches and a Grade D ban. 

I think we do have a problem (and I say this as somebody who won't bash refs) in that games are now all being televised but we are seeing some instances of foul play where injuries are occurring that are then deemed worthy of decent bans that are seeing yellow or penalties only - and this is where the VR has looked at something. My team has benefited from this over the last few weeks, both BMM and Gelling have had yellows but then punished by the disciplinary. I think the natural assumption is that if something is serious enough for a ban then it probably should have been red. And we aren't talking about innocuous things, we are taking about incidents that are looked at over and over and yellow seems to be the cop-out. 

I think there needs to be something around the processes here. Either we leave it to the ref, or we give the VR more direction on recommendations on punishing serious foul play. 

I do also think there is a place for a sending off with a replacement allowed which may take the pressure of refs feeling they may ruin a battle. 

[Tommygilf]

41 minutes ago, JohnM said:

IIRC thee is a club near Leeds called Queens.Bit of a reputation

Ryan Bailey and Michael McIlorum from there. I heard they have had teams kicked out of the Yorkshire leagues before. Not sure what the scenario is now for the club.

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

The trouble with the modern game is it allows cheap shot merchants such as Smithies to get away with 10 mins in the bin then allowed back on the field, had that first offence happened (two headbutts and a swinging arm albeit it missed but the intent was there) a few years back there would be one or two 'old pro's' who would be having a 'physical' little private word in his ear hole, after the second offence (crusher, as bad as it comes) it would not have been any disciplinary that would be keeping him on the sidelines for a few weeks! 

I remember the times when someone commited an offense that was so blatantly obvious it led to the victim being taken from the field injured and so the crowd would chant Off, Off, Off, I use to comment and say 'leave him on" justice will no doubt prevail.

 

I think thats partly true H. If anything there is a reluctance to Sin bin in certain scenarios and I think Wigan get away with a lot due to their reputation as a "physical team". Its not the "cheap shots" per se that get sin binned, its the blatant stuff that the ref can't ignore. Cheap shots still exist in the game, enforcers are perhaps rarer (but thats true in most team sports) - the dark arts of Rugby Union and the uncompromising centre half in football. As I said its only the blatant stuff that gets a sin bin. I agree we've perhaps lost that enforcer style mentality somewhat; maybe its because we don't hear enough from prop forwards! JP put it quite well that his role was to go out and hurt his opponents so they don't want to run it in again. I suspect we still have those figures in teams, but its not advertised.

There's also much more scrutiny now meaning cheap/sly shots have to be even more sneaky with televised games having 8 camera angles etc. I expect there's more in the Championship, L1 and NCL that get away with it given that isn't there and the slower pace of game.

[LeeF]

45 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Ryan Bailey and Michael McIlorum from there. I heard they have had teams kicked out of the Yorkshire leagues before. Not sure what the scenario is now for the club.

Could also play fantastic rugby and more often than not they did

[JohnM]

50 minutes ago, Dave T said:

And the evidence so far has already seen him get 2 matches and a Grade D ban. 

I think we do have a problem (and I say this as somebody who won't bash refs) in that games are now all being televised but we are seeing some instances of foul play where injuries are occurring that are then deemed worthy of decent bans that are seeing yellow or penalties only - and this is where the VR has looked at something. My team has benefited from this over the last few weeks, both BMM and Gelling have had yellows but then punished by the disciplinary. I think the natural assumption is that if something is serious enough for a ban then it probably should have been red. And we aren't talking about innocuous things, we are taking about incidents that are looked at over and over and yellow seems to be the cop-out. 

I think there needs to be something around the processes here. Either we leave it to the ref, or we give the VR more direction on recommendations on punishing serious foul play. 

I do also think there is a place for a sending off with a replacement allowed which may take the pressure of refs feeling they may ruin a battle. 

I do also think there is a place for a sending off with a replacement allowed which may take the pressure of refs feeling they may ruin a battle. 

sounds like a good idea to me.   Good coaches take them off before they get sent off...Sometimes.  This idea would help.

[JohnM]

33 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think thats partly true H. If anything there is a reluctance to Sin bin in certain scenarios and I think Wigan get away with a lot due to their reputation as a "physical team". Its not the "cheap shots" per se that get sin binned, its the blatant stuff that the ref can't ignore. Cheap shots still exist in the game, enforcers are perhaps rarer (but thats true in most team sports) - the dark arts of Rugby Union and the uncompromising centre half in football. As I said its only the blatant stuff that gets a sin bin. I agree we've perhaps lost that enforcer style mentality somewhat; maybe its because we don't hear enough from prop forwards! JP put it quite well that his role was to go out and hurt his opponents so they don't want to run it in again. I suspect we still have those figures in teams, but its not advertised.

There's also much more scrutiny now meaning cheap/sly shots have to be even more sneaky with televised games having 8 camera angles etc. I expect there's more in the Championship, L1 and NCL that get away with it given that isn't there and the slower pace of game.

I think Wigan get away with a lot....

Ah! Now we're getting there!

[Harry Stottle]

24 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I expect there's more in the Championship, L1 and NCL that get away with it given that isn't there and the slower pace of game.

I have always maintained the slower the game the more opportunity to be let's say 'contentious' there is, it used to be cruel at times in the Amatuer game years ago.

But today's game has far more sneaky attributes like the third tackler at the back of the legs, the chicken wing and the new phenomenon of the crusher tackle. It makes one wonder what 'yesterdays' enforcers would have done seeing team mates subjected to such actions, would I be wrong in suggesting that if they were still about player's would think twice before committing these offences, food for thought that.

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said:

This could have been said about Matty Lees a few years ago. He had a spell of yellow and red cards and disciplinary appearances but seems to have channelled his aggression correctly now. Smithies will be the same. It’s a bit of a learning curve.   

For some reason a few prejudiced observers have got it in for Smithies.  Shocking for them that he is a successful Wigan player.

It was another Wigan player who contributed to the injury with a low tackle that twisted the player.  I've seen several matches since the lockdown and time and time again we see lots of tackles made across the shoulder and then rolled onto the neck, often because the player is falling or pulled down.  Often with assistance.   Most of these tackles are ignored.

Often we are cheering on the big hits, this was mentioned on another thread the other day.   We want big contacts more speed, and then complain about injuries.

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Could also play fantastic rugby and more often than not they did

Aye, tends to be the story of RL clubs. Tough places produce tough people who can play.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I think Wigan get away with a lot....

Ah! Now we're getting there!

Hahaha its not personal honest!

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I have always maintained the slower the game the more opportunity to be let's say 'contentious' there is, it used to be cruel at times in the Amatuer game years ago.

But today's game has far more sneaky attributes like the third tackler at the back of the legs, the chicken wing and the new phenomenon of the crusher tackle. It makes one wonder what 'yesterdays' enforcers would have done seeing team mates subjected to such actions, would I be wrong in suggesting that if they were still about player's would think twice before committing these offences, food for thought that.

I get that but we can't have thugby league either. The ref has to take control and we can't escape the fact that society is less accepting of it now across the board.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

I get that but we can't have thugby league either. The ref has to take control and we can't escape the fact that society is less accepting of it now across the board.

There have been a few recent incidents that contradict the ref has taken control.

Are they strict enough in their interpretations? 

I can't agree with Dave's suggestion that a sent off player could be replaced, that is really open to be a tactic against the opposition's 'danger man' than an occasional accurnce.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

There have been a few recent incidents that contradict the ref has taken control.

Are they strict enough in their interpretations? 

I can't agree with Dave's suggestion that a sent off player could be replaced, that is really open to be a tactic against the opposition's 'danger man' than an occasional accurnce.

The ref can fail to take control, thats human error, not through lack of trying. 

Refs face constant pressure to not slow the game down or interrupt flow too. As ever they are between a rock and a hard place and coaching is always to push the rules to the limit.

Tbh I'm not sure with the sending off. My gut says a sending off should leave 12 v 13, however I can understand that refs could be reluctant to use it to massively impact a contest. Its also true in the modern interchange game that taking 1 player out of the 17 is as impactful sometimes depending on position.

[JohnM]

I think the "sending off with replacement" idea is to sit between sin binning (which in my view is not used enough) and a foul play sending off.

[DavidM]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm not sure with the sending off. My gut says a sending off should leave 12 v 13, however I can understand that refs could be reluctant to use it to massively impact a contest. Its also true in the modern interchange game that taking 1 player out of the 17 is as impactful sometimes depending on position.

I reckon especially in the NRL they have this mindset , there’s been a ridiculous reluctance to use the send off with on report a total cop out . But no way should a referee be thinking like this . It’s not their concern .A send off offence is a send off , and there’s no real excuse now with the video back up . There must be in play sanctions for serious foul play , a ban down the line does the aggrieved side no good . And at times they lose a player 

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I reckon especially in the NRL they have this mindset , there’s been a ridiculous reluctance to use the send off with on report a total cop out . But no way should a referee be thinking like this . It’s not their concern .A send off offence is a send off , and there’s no real excuse now with the video back up . There must be in play sanctions for serious foul play , a ban down the line does the aggrieved side no good . And at times they lose a player 

I would get rid of the "on report" call from the ref.. the whole game should be "on report" really or let the opposition team/neutral official "cite" players as they do/did in RU up to a set number of days after the game. Dont let the ref use "on report" to get out of making a card decision which does seem to be happening. 

[dkw]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

I would get rid of the "on report" call from the ref.. the whole game should be "on report" really or let the opposition team/neutral official "cite" players as they do/did in RU up to a set number of days after the game. Dont let the ref use "on report" to get out of making a card decision which does seem to be happening. 

Its something I've never understood about the on report thing as I`m sure all games are now reviewed by a group the week after arent they?

[DavidM]

30 minutes ago, dkw said:

Its something I've never understood about the on report thing as I`m sure all games are now reviewed by a group the week after arent they?

Exactly . You see instances on replay of suspected foul play which haven’t been spotted , and the comms  say ‘ the match review might pick that up ‘ . I don’t understand refs telling the VR to look for a specific thing either because they look at everything 

[LeeF]

28 minutes ago, dkw said:

Its something I've never understood about the on report thing as I`m sure all games are now reviewed by a group the week after arent they?

All games have been reviewed for a number of years. The “on report” allows a free substitution (or did) if the injured player couldn’t return.

The “on report” was originally introduced for use when the match officials didn’t have a clear view of an incident and to prevent the wrong player being dismissed.

It is now used, presumably with encouragement from above, to “protect” from the Monday morning phone call and the rollicking from Ganson if the referee gets it wrong

[LeeF]

Defending the on field match officials I would say that picking up crusher type tackles in real time with one view etc is very difficult especially if there is more than one player in the tackle. The VR input after a number of viewings is a completely different discussion though 

[Marauder]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Ryan Bailey and Michael McIlorum from there. I heard they have had teams kicked out of the Yorkshire leagues before. Not sure what the scenario is now for the club.

They folded 2 seasons ago..

[Tommygilf]

26 minutes ago, Marauder said:

They folded 2 seasons ago..

Shame to see any club go like that.

[Robin Evans]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Shame to see any club go like that.

There isn't a rugby league club in ponty or selby now. 

[Loiner]

I remember a few seasons back Brett Ferres got 6 matches for doing the same thing to Oliver Gildart. I would be very disappointed if Smithies got anything less.

[Davo5]

16 minutes ago, Loiner said:

I remember a few seasons back Brett Ferres got 6 matches for doing the same thing to Oliver Gildart. I would be very disappointed if Smithies got anything less.

2 totally different tackles,they were doing Leeds a favour giving him 6 matches.