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

[Moove 914]

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.

[Rupert Prince 1,410]

The disciplinary are a total joke.

[LeeF 1,998]

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?

[LeeF 1,998]

http://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_docs/MATCH REVIEW PANEL MINUTES FINAL 20201005v2.pdf
 

If anyone is interested and prepared to put their club supporting/ hating prejudices to one side

[Saint 1 1,771]

 

2 hours ago, Moove said:

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.

Why? He has no responsibility to release from a still moving tackle and you can't go changing rules and applying them retrospectively because someone happened to get injured.

3 hours 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. 

Why? The hip drop tackle is an illegal tackle with a high incidence of injury. A tackle with initial contact above the knee is a legal tackle with low incidence of injury (even though occurring in this specific case). I don't see how a ban for the former is mystifying compared to no ban for the latter. 

Plenty of examples in the Twitter thread above on the hip drop tackle and the resultant injury risks. Just because it isn't as obvious as a high tackle doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a ban.

[Exiled Wiganer 3,527]

8 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

 

Why? He has no responsibility to release from a still moving tackle and you can't go changing rules and applying them retrospectively because someone happened to get injured.

Why? The hip drop tackle is an illegal tackle with a high incidence of injury. A tackle with initial contact above the knee is a legal tackle with low incidence of injury (even though occurring in this specific case). I don't see how a ban for the former is mystifying compared to no ban for the latter. 

Plenty of examples in the Twitter thread above on the hip drop tackle and the resultant injury risks. Just because it isn't as obvious as a high tackle doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a ban.

Are you citing injury risk in the context of a tackle which actually may have ended a player’s top flight career? There was no need to weigh up potential risk in the instance. So, if that is a factor I will remain mystified, even if I am in small group or indeed a group of 1.
 

Having played and watched TGG for decades I find the 2 findings inconsistent, but the disciplinary have the advantage over me of better information and greater knowledge. 

[Moove 914]

39 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

Why? He has no responsibility to release from a still moving tackle and you can't go changing rules and applying them retrospectively because someone happened to get injured

I didn't suggest 'changing rules and applying them retrospectively because someone happened to get injured'. Where have you got that from? I said I thought it warranted a ban - a view I put on this very thread at the time before the injury was known. I also said I am of the view that in that position he 'should' have responsibility. I also said why - to avoid injury as third man in.

No problem if you (and the disciplinary for that matter) have a different opinion but did you even read the post you quoted? Seems like you're after creating an argument so I'll get out before it starts. Ta.

[Saint 1 1,771]

39 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Are you citing injury risk in the context of a tackle which actually may have ended a player’s top flight career? There was no need to weigh up potential risk in the instance. So, if that is a factor I will remain mystified, even if I am in small group or indeed a group of 1.

If for example, 50% of people who receive hip drop tackles get injured, and 0.5% of people who receive tackles with first contact above the knee get injured, then it is entirely fair to say a hip drop tackle comes with a higher injury risk. This is still the case despite the rare scenario where someone gets injured with a perfectly legal above the knee tackle.

 

1 minute ago, Moove said:

I didn't suggest 'changing rules and applying them retrospectively because someone happened to get injured'. Where have you got that from? I said I thought it warranted a ban - a view I put on this very thread at the time before the injury was known. I also said I am of the view that in that position he 'should' have responsibility. I also said why - to avoid injury as third man in.

No problem if you (and the disciplinary for that matter) have a different opinion but did you even read the post you quoted? Seems like you're after creating an argument so I'll get out before it starts. Ta.

I did read your post. You said the tackle warranted a ban, but the tackle broke no rules, so what do you want him banned for? What offence?

[Exiled Wiganer 3,527]

9 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

If for example, 50% of people who receive hip drop tackles get injured, and 0.5% of people who receive tackles with first contact above the knee get injured, then it is entirely fair to say a hip drop tackle comes with a higher injury risk. This is still the case despite the rare scenario where someone gets injured with a perfectly legal above the knee tackle.

 

I did read your post. You said the tackle warranted a ban, but the tackle broke no rules, so what do you want him banned for? What offence?

I understand risk, and I understand probability. I also watched this particular tackle. There are of course a few different elements to it. Once Saints successfully argued/the disciplinary concluded that the contact was higher up the leg than it appeared to me, they were on course to conclude that there was nothing to see here. I am not even suggesting they are wrong, and certainly not that they are biased, simply that the “man in the street” could well look at the 2 tackles and their outcomes and shake their head. I am mystified not outraged. In any case, sadly, even a ban would be very cold comfort for Wells. 

[Davo5 4,484]

This country really needs to get the Saints disciplinary team involved with the EU talks.

Edited October 6 by Davo5

[Rupert Prince 1,410]

42 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

This country really needs to get the Saints disciplinary team involved with the EU talks.

Bottom line is the disciplinary sucks.  Total inconsistency.  Flower gets 2 matches for doing nothing, Smithies gets a suspension.  On the other side... One Wigan player is is injured, probably out of the game for a 3rd man tackle, another dropped on his neck. Result... zero suspensions.  Totally pathetic. 

The intention of the tackling players is not the point, they may have not wanted to create an injury, i dont know.  But there was a real likelyhood for one, and the whole point of suspensions is to penalize lazy players into behaving safely.  

But as i have said previously, the rules are producing accidents waiting to happen.  And as i regularly also say... Saints get away with murder, but let us all applaud, they are good at it.  

[Hela Wigmen 1,874]

The meltdown on here was nearly as good as our performance last week, so cheers everyone.

The belief that Saints get decisions go our way is a funny one, too. More so when it comes from Wigan fans. 

[LeeF 1,998]

I’m just reposting the link as it is clear that some posters have either not read or understood the clear explanation provided for charging/ not charging. I will be charitable and say that may be down to supporting allegiance but to compare vastly different incidents and claim bias is just a joke. Similarly there has been no input from St Helens or any other team at this stage of the disciplinary process

http://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_docs/MATCH REVIEW PANEL MINUTES FINAL 20201005v2.pdf

[Exiled Wiganer 3,527]

1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said:

The meltdown on here was nearly as good as our performance last week, so cheers everyone.

The belief that Saints get decisions go our way is a funny one, too. More so when it comes from Wigan fans. 

I am not sure that concern over this particular incident should cheer you up, but each to their own I suppose. 

[Hela Wigmen 1,874]

1 minute ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I am not sure that concern over this particular incident should cheer you up, but each to their own I suppose. 

It was made out as if Walmsley had murdered him and the outrage over the incident was far greater than it warranted. But I suppose there wasn’t much else to hold onto from last week from a Wigan perspective. 

[dkw 4,641]

Wigan fans claiming the disciplinary committee are biased against them is hilariously ironic...

[Saint 1 1,771]

6 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I understand risk, and I understand probability. I also watched this particular tackle. There are of course a few different elements to it. Once Saints successfully argued/the disciplinary concluded that the contact was higher up the leg than it appeared to me, they were on course to conclude that there was nothing to see here. I am not even suggesting they are wrong, and certainly not that they are biased, simply that the “man in the street” could well look at the 2 tackles and their outcomes and shake their head. I am mystified not outraged. In any case, sadly, even a ban would be very cold comfort for Wells. 

Fair enough, I've got no issue with that point about the "man in the street". I suppose the counterpoint is that the same would probably apply to crusher tackles. It is sad to see for Wells though and hopefully he recovers well and can put his injury troubles behind him. 

[Rupert Prince 1,410]

5 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It was made out as if Walmsley had murdered him and the outrage over the incident was far greater than it warranted. But I suppose there wasn’t much else to hold onto from last week from a Wigan perspective. 

Walmsley did not get away with murder, but he did commit a foul and got away with it... lets see how the disciplary compare with later hair line desisions.

But Lomax!  He dropped an opponent on his neck, got 10 minutes and clearly knew he was bang to rights.  Whether he was deliberate or nor is not the point.  He made a mistake, he is not evil, it happened in a moment, but its not the point about intent.  Its about the event.   

And what happened?  The judges showed themselves up as jokers... they are saying in so many words that just because the opponent got lucky (and did not break his neck) his foul is chalked off.   Jokers!  and clearly aints fans like the joke and are laughing up their sleves.  They are learning well from their Aussie coaches.

But let me again and again say... its the rules and the pace of the game that is creating these injuries.

 

[Exiled Wiganer 3,527]

21 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It was made out as if Walmsley had murdered him and the outrage over the incident was far greater than it warranted. But I suppose there wasn’t much else to hold onto from last week from a Wigan perspective. 

It wasn’t made out in that way. There was no outrage, there was analysis. There was concern over the action causing such a bad injury, with potential career ending opportunities. You seem to see the world entirely through a one eyed filter and consider debate over a tackle which caused severe injury to be a bit of a laugh. Hold onto the win over the kids as tight as you can though. 

[Hela Wigmen 1,874]

Just now, Exiled Wiganer said:

It wasn’t made out in that way. There was no outrage, there was analysis. There was concern over the action causing such a bad injury, with potential career ending opportunities. You seem to see the world entirely through a one eyed filter and consider debate over a tackle which caused severe injury to be a bit of a laugh. Hold onto the win over the kids as tight as you can though. 

There was plenty “if that was Flower...”, “there’s an agenda against Wigan” and constant violin type nonsense from a couple of posters in particular, making out that the tackle was far worse than it was. There was very little analysis or debate about the tackle at the time from most, if not, every Wigan fan here. It was just pure dirge about agendas and how terrible the tackle was with their cherry and white specs on.

The outrage lasted for the rest of the game. Granted, there wasn’t a great deal to talk about from a Wigan perspective and it was comical.