Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Old Frightful

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

Who will win?  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • St Helens
      23
    • Wigan Warriors
      7


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, PrintHelloWorld said:

The same David Klemmer who was the forward with the most metres in the NRL this year?

I was referring to the amount of strapping he was covered in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PrintHelloWorld said:

The same David Klemmer who was the forward with the most metres in the NRL this year?

Tbh being invisible we would only have his word for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jim Prendle said:

I thought the third man in was not allowed to hit/tackle below the hip?

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

15 hours ago, Jim Prendle said:

Sorry, but I don't accept that. Walmsley knew that he didn't have to put all that force into the lads knee, and he didn't need a slide rule to calculate it either.

Terrible tackle, terrible result for Wells, and hopefully a terrible result for Walmsley as well.

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.

Edited by Saint 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes 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 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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

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. 

I think the hip drop tackles in particular can look quite innocuous (while still carrying a high risk of injury). Glad we are on the same page on Flower though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said:

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

I reckon it will get to 17 before long 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Seems strange to be going on about how good Wigan’s young players are, they can’t be that good they just lost 42-0.

Leeds 0 St. Helens 48 🤔

Edited by Jinking Jimmy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Lets Get Brexit Done !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagined me the fact Lomax got a sin binning will influence any decision. I'd have no qualms if they deemed a yellow to be sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

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...