Jump to content

Tues 29th Sept SL : St Helens v Wigan Warriors KO 7:45pm SKY

Old Frightful

Who will win?  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • St Helens
      23
    • Wigan Warriors
      7

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply
dkw

dkw

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

Sorry but I didn't think it was either a violent challenge or very late. And if Coote could well have been concussed then the best place for him would be in the treatment room being assessed. But once the penalty and sin bin had been awarded, he carried on without any sort of issue.

That's how I saw it. As I've already said, I wanted Wigan to give a good account of themselves due to the number of young kids in the team but I didn't watch with any particularly coloured glasses on. (Perhaps I should have had some sort of glasses on!)

And I think they did go ok, plenty of teams will suffer one sided losses against Saints.

 

I dont think it was a violent challenge, but it was clumsy and as soon as he made contact with his head i thought he was in trouble, isnt the ruling that any  contact to a kickers head is now an instant sin binning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Exiled Wiganer

Exiled Wiganer

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Saint 1 said:

Then you don't know the rule and should refrain from commenting until you do. 

There's no rule against tackling forcefully and the only rule about 3rd man in is you can't make initial contact below the knee. 

As above, learn the rules.

Applying that rule, then. Walmsley is in a great deal of trouble, as he applies all of his weight below the left knee (and he only took out the left leg) of a player already held up by 2 of his colleagues, with the end result being a very serious injury. Moreover, as the player had already been held up he had a lot of time to choose exactly where to put his 19 stone. If you stop the recording at 19:42 on the clock, it is crystal clear. 

Like others, I can’t help but idly muse what might have been In TRL land had a player in red committed that that tackle with that result. But it is a matter for the judiciary, and I am sure they will take a look at the 2 legged slip down the body tackle on a moving player that lead to a 2 match ban for Flower as against this. Tbh, it is pretty much the definition of a dangerous attack to the legs. Which, as I understand it, the game is looking to stamp out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Exiled Wiganer

Exiled Wiganer

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

I don't have the game recorded to look back unfortunately, which is a shame as I'd like to see whether the response is justified. That doesn't change the fact that Jim Prendle's understanding of the rules is completely wrong. 

Sure. Am happy for the disciplinary to take a look, they are normally pretty sensible. I wouldn’t have bothered looking at it again save that the recent Flower 2 match ban looked so innocuous. Ironically, I don’t think Flower should even be wearing a Wigan shirt after what he did to the club and the game, so I wasn’t even that bothered by the outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rupert Prince

Rupert Prince

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Applying that rule, then. Walmsley is in a great deal of trouble, as he applies all of his weight below the left knee (and he only took out the left leg) of a player already held up by 2 of his colleagues, with the end result being a very serious injury. Moreover, as the player had already been held up he had a lot of time to choose exactly where to put his 19 stone. If you stop the recording at 19:42 on the clock, it is crystal clear. 

Like others, I can’t help but idly muse what might have been In TRL land had a player in red committed that that tackle with that result. But it is a matter for the judiciary, and I am sure they will take a look at the 2 legged slip down the body tackle on a moving player that lead to a 2 match ban for Flower as against this. Tbh, it is pretty much the definition of a dangerous attack to the legs. Which, as I understand it, the game is looking to stamp out. 

I'm grateful for your comments.  I am left to say that generally I see lots of 3rd man tackles and lots of them are around the legs.  The poor referee is getting really overloaded with marginal decisions.  

But based on the recent Flower ban, 2 Saints players could get long bans.  Unless they know the phone number of  Sargisons lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hela Wigmen

Hela Wigmen

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

I'm grateful for your comments.  I am left to say that generally I see lots of 3rd man tackles and lots of them are around the legs.  The poor referee is getting really overloaded with marginal decisions.  

But based on the recent Flower ban, 2 Saints players could get long bans.  Unless they know the phone number of  Sargisons lawyer.

Two? This meltdown is evolving from one player to two now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rupert Prince

Rupert Prince

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Two? This meltdown is evolving from one player to two now. 

I'm not particularly thinking that either Saints players should get suspended but I've seem others get suspensions after review for what look like the same to me.  This is the real issue. Are the disciplinary consistant.  They are steadily moving the the goal posts and frankly if they are consistent 2 players should get a suspended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hela Wigmen

Hela Wigmen

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

I'm not particularly thinking that either Saints players should get suspended but I've seem others get suspensions after review for what look like the same to me.  This is the real issue. Are the disciplinary consistant.  They are steadily moving the the goal posts and frankly if they are consistent 2 players should get a suspended.

I’m not even sure who the two are. I presume one is Walmsley, the other one could be anyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rupert Prince

Rupert Prince

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

I’m not even sure who the two are. I presume one is Walmsley, the other one could be anyone. 

Well Lomax was sin binned for lifting opponent on the head. 

As I repeat, once refs and the disciplinary start on this route then fans will be annoyed if there is no consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hela Wigmen

Hela Wigmen

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Well Lomax was sin binned for lifting opponent on the head. 

As I repeat, once refs and the disciplinary start on this route then fans will be annoyed if there is no consistency.

I will be shocked if he gets anything more than the yellow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Toppy

Saint Toppy

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Well Lomax was sin binned for lifting opponent on the head. 

As I repeat, once refs and the disciplinary start on this route then fans will be annoyed if there is no consistency.

That's not what he was binned for, he got the yellow for putting the player in a dangerous position, which is rightly a yellow card offence. When he hits the ground he lands on his back not direct on his head.

There's a clear distinction between putting a player in a dangerous position (which is a yellow card offence) and a spear tackle where the player is driven into the ground head first (which warrants a ban).

IMO Lomax would be unlucky to get a ban as while he put him in a dangerous position there was no spear tackle. 

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rupert Prince

Rupert Prince

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

That's not what he was binned for, he got the yellow for putting the player in a dangerous position, which is rightly a yellow card offence. When he hits the ground he lands on his back not direct on his head.

There's a clear distinction between putting a player in a dangerous position (which is a yellow card offence) and a spear tackle where the player is driven into the ground head first (which warrants a ban).

IMO Lomax would be unlucky to get a ban as while he put him in a dangerous position there was no spear tackle. 

That rubbish.  It was quoted in totalrl, no less, as a tip tackle.  Dumping, tipping spearing, on the head or neck.  I saw the tackle on the neck.

But this is in a way off my point,  what we get is a series of regulativa tackle around the neck, from all side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Exiled Wiganer

Exiled Wiganer

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

The panel noted: “Player (Walmsley) makes attempt to tackle as opponent is still making forward progress.

“Player makes initial contact on thigh of opponent. Player demonstrates wrapping motion towards both legs whilst maintaining control of own bodyweight.

"Player’s grip allows limb of opponent to rotate in contact as other tackler rotates opponent in contact.”

 

This is the apparent absolutely disgraceful tackle that should have seen Walmsley banned for months, isn't it?

Fair enough. That’s their job. It does make Flower’s 2 match ban mystifying. Sadly, it looks like Wells’ season has finished, and probably his Wigan career. So its effects were certainly catastrophic for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moove

Moove

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Fair enough. That’s their job. It does make Flower’s 2 match ban mystifying. Sadly, it looks like Wells’ season has finished, and probably his Wigan career. So its effects were certainly catastrophic for him. 

Even as a Saints fan (who would probably ban Flower for breathing), the ban he got was ridiculous. Not sure if the people on the disciplinary committee still changes week to week but inconsistency is perhaps to be expected if it does.

FWIW I thought the Walmsley one warranted a ban. I can see where they're coming from with the twisting coming from the other tacklers but he should have responsibility to release from the tackle to avoid injury. Even more so as third man in, even if Wells was still moving.

Watching the Lomax tackle back, it's clear that contact with the ground was shoulder first. Dangerous contact and definitely sin bin worthy. I wouldn't have disagreed with a one game ban too in fairness but it wasn't a particularly bad one. Not sure what the Graham incident was.

As an aside, fingers crossed Wells makes a good recovery and earns himself a contract elsewhere with a chance to prove his abilities. Not good to see any serious injuries, even less so for a young kid just starting out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LeeF

LeeF

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

The disciplinary are a total joke.

Although I probably can guess I will ask why?

I will also ask if you have read and fully understood the full explanation of the decision that has upset you so much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.