Jump to content

Micky McIlorum and Joel Tomkins at the RFL Disciplinary.


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, RP London said:

while the player is down injured then surely the video ref gets a chance to have a look as well which is why i am baffled it wasnt dealt with the officials on the day.

Does the VR only get involved if the on field ref refers it to him?

I'm not sure.

                                    "It started out in innocence, the way that most things do,
                                     a thousand people crammed in one place, but the only face was you"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

See Mose Masoe or Adam O'brien. That is why you don't touch an injured player especially with a head knock.

This was my favourite part.

Shows you how lucky Makinson was to only get 5 matches for his testicle juggling.

1 minute ago, Old Frightful said:

Does the VR only get involved if the on field ref refers it to him?

I'm not sure.

dont know myself, assumed they could if they felt it hadnt been dealt with properly or the ref had made a blatant mistake (ie wrong player getting binned/sent off) but i may be wrong. If i am then this needs to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Not when they've stayed down injured after a tackle they aren't.

McIlorum thought he was playing for a penalty, and because evidently he has the mental capacity of a teaspoon he thought "I only whacked you get up you soft xxxx" and tried to get play to carry on because he knew he'd hit him clenched fist across the face. Dwyer also had blood streaming down his face lets not forget, so its not even a "feigning" scenario.

McIllorum didn’t think he was playing for a penalty. He knew he had made contact across Dwyer’s face so was trying to prevent the VR from having the opportunity to review

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RP London said:

dont know myself, assumed they could if they felt it hadnt been dealt with properly or the ref had made a blatant mistake (ie wrong player getting binned/sent off) but i may be wrong. If i am then this needs to change.

If they can’t, there’s now been two pretty high profile events (Knowles grounding the ball v Wire in the CC Final and McIlroum rearranging Dwyer’s face) in high profile games, so it’s something that needs to be looked into, without it turning into the farce that VAR has become in Football. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RP London said:

Once he was down then the video ref should have stood in and dealt with it making the high tackle a penalty at the least.. the fact it was play on was poor officiating. 

The finger up the harris deserves a long ban.. he move his hand down there from being on his back he knew exactly what he was doing and its a disgraceful act.

Worse than the squirrel grip from Makinson who got 5?

As I say, there is just hysteria from commentators.  McIlorum hit the player as he went down.  On review he got 2 games and that was fair.

As was said in Origin commentary today, someone pointed out that a high penalty was given whereas many had been ignored.  In this case the defender lost the ball. Many many penalties could be given if the ref wanted, because lots of tackles are on the margin.  The reason? The speed and nature of the game.

2 real serious injuries in Origin, one looked particularly bad.  Both quite accidental, one certainly was due to a falling tackle.

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

Worse than the squirrel grip from Makinson who got 5?

As I say, there is just hysteria from commentators.  McIlorum hit the player as he went down.  On review he got 2 games and that was fair.

As was said in Origin commentary today, someone pointed out that a high penalty was given whereas many had been ignored.  In this case the defender lost the ball. Many many penalties could be given if the ref wanted, because lots of tackles are on the margin.  The reason? The speed and nature of the game.

2 real serious injuries in Origin, one looked particularly bad.  Both quite accidental, one certainly was due to a falling tackle.

Personally  I think 8 games is soft for that type of sh8thousery to be honest.. anything in that area (and i would include makinson if he was playing with someones danglies) is a season.. i think its an utter disgrace.. but i digress..

Didnt Makinson get less because of his previous good behaviour? if that is the way we are going Tomkins must be due a life ban for his next infringment! its difficult to compare if they are taking past behavious into account.

McIllorum should have been penalised on the pitch for it is the point I am making in this. It was "play on" and it shouldnt have been. We have to be very careful around the head and this should have been a penalty and probably a red for direct contact to the head, its the defenders responsibility to make the tackle safe IMHO and that was a swinging arm with a closed fist, honestly if he had got red i think "send off sufficient" may have been fair on that.. what he did afterwards i think he has been punished for accurately. I think if he had got more it would have been harsh but its not clever to mess about with anyone on the floor that you have just clattered around the head.

origin i cannot comment on as i haven't seen it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Looks like we have a similar incident in Origin III, will be interesting to see what punishment they give. 

edit: saw your link.. 

Ok for me thats worse than the afters from McIllorum... the initial incident wasnt as bad but the afters is terrible.. if we had the same grading systems etc i could see him getting just as bad if not a bit more as he slams him back into the ground and rubs his face in (which isnt allowed anyway).

Edited by RP London
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, LeeF said:

McIllorum didn’t think he was playing for a penalty. He knew he had made contact across Dwyer’s face so was trying to prevent the VR from having the opportunity to review

Semantics with the same effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

sorry yes saw that and edited my post... probably should have just re written it.. 

this is what i said;

Ok for me thats worse than the afters from McIllorum... the initial incident wasnt as bad but the afters is terrible.. if we had the same grading systems etc i could see him getting just as bad if not a bit more as he slams him back into the ground and rubs his face in (which isnt allowed anyway).

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, RP London said:

sorry yes saw that and edited my post... probably should have just re written it.. 

this is what i said;

Ok for me thats worse than the afters from McIllorum... the initial incident wasnt as bad but the afters is terrible.. if we had the same grading systems etc i could see him getting just as bad if not a bit more as he slams him back into the ground and rubs his face in (which isnt allowed anyway).

I think it is hard to compare the situations - Arrow's afters is definitely worse than McIlorum's but it wasn't Arrow that hit Tedesco high, so is probably completely unaware of Papali's knee that has just hit him. 

Besides, you see that kind of picking up and throwing down after the tackle regularly in origin. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Click said:

I think it is hard to compare the situations - Arrow's afters is definitely worse than McIlorum's but it wasn't Arrow that hit Tedesco high, so is probably completely unaware of Papali's knee that has just hit him. 

Besides, you see that kind of picking up and throwing down after the tackle regularly in origin. 

to be honest i wrote and then deleted what you said about arrow as a mitigating factor.. the only reason being that you still arent allowed to do that... and he was the man who made the main tackle, so completed it therefore picking him up like that when he knows the tackle is complete is a penalty surely for delaying the play the ball. either that or he knows he isnt getting up and we are back to square one.

yes they may do it a regularly in origin but it only takes one nasty incident and the game could be in real trouble... so best to stamp it out in incidents that "arent that bad" rather than wait for the really nasty one. 

Edited by RP London
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ramon Rojo said:

Over the top stiff sentences for both players. If they'd both got 10 minutes sin binning at the time it would have been more sensible.

McIlorum made a split second error of judgement keeping his hand in as Dwyer fell in the tackle. Pulling him up was a reaction to what Mickey wrongly presumed to be over theatrics. He was naive rather than malicious.

Tomkins was just stupid and seemed to blankly react to Myler by getting dragged into the thrashing about on the deck and doing something completely out of character for no fathomable reason. 

The danger of the dubious social media hankering to throw the book at the 2 lads is a recipe that could sadly see our game slip towards the devious pantomime of what football has become, a game plagued by the benefits of over reaction for the slightest of contacts. McIlorum & Tomkins will pay the price of their errors but please remember this is Rugby League not Mo Salah & Rashford flopping around every 5 minutes.

Aye.... whats the world coming to when you can't shove ya finger up another players bum eh?

The games gone soft etc etc....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Worse than the squirrel grip from Makinson who got 5?

As I say, there is just hysteria from commentators.  McIlorum hit the player as he went down.  On review he got 2 games and that was fair.

As was said in Origin commentary today, someone pointed out that a high penalty was given whereas many had been ignored.  In this case the defender lost the ball. Many many penalties could be given if the ref wanted, because lots of tackles are on the margin.  The reason? The speed and nature of the game.

2 real serious injuries in Origin, one looked particularly bad.  Both quite accidental, one certainly was due to a falling tackle.

there is just hysteria from commentators.

Not just the commentators.

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Disciplinary minutes are on the RFL site for both incidents. Open the “view details” tab

The Tomkins one is very strongly worded by the Panel and leaves you in no doubt as to what happened and their view on Tomkins’ actions. If Tomkins is embarrassed as he claims then their is only one person to blame and there is zero mitigation

Edited by LeeF
Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of extracts from Tomkins statement:

"I spoke to Richie afterwards. I said, 'You shouldn't be making accusations like that' - clearly he'd felt something, I do understand that - but he said he knew I wouldn't have done it intentionally and didn't think I'd be cited for it. We had a chat, and I left the ground thinking that would be the end of the issue.

So I was absolutely staggered when I was charged on Monday evening after Leeds had informed the RFL that Richie Myler stood by his onfield allegations".

This is ridiculous.  Whether this was an accident or intentional, Myler would have felt the incident and is well within his rights to complain about it.  He should not be telling Myler to not make accusations and he should not be complaining when he has.  Myler is not the one at fault here.

"And even if people want to believe it was intentional, do they think I'd be that stupid to do it so blatantly with 20 cameras pointing at me"?

Yes.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

A couple of extracts from Tomkins statement:

"I spoke to Richie afterwards. I said, 'You shouldn't be making accusations like that' - clearly he'd felt something, I do understand that - but he said he knew I wouldn't have done it intentionally and didn't think I'd be cited for it. We had a chat, and I left the ground thinking that would be the end of the issue.

So I was absolutely staggered when I was charged on Monday evening after Leeds had informed the RFL that Richie Myler stood by his onfield allegations".

This is ridiculous.  Whether this was an accident or intentional, Myler would have felt the incident and is well within his rights to complain about it.  He should not be telling Myler to not make accusations and he should not be complaining when he has.  Myler is not the one at fault here.

"And even if people want to believe it was intentional, do they think I'd be that stupid to do it so blatantly with 20 cameras pointing at me"?

Yes.

 

This is pretty sinister stuff tbh. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

A couple of extracts from Tomkins statement:

"I spoke to Richie afterwards. I said, 'You shouldn't be making accusations like that' - clearly he'd felt something, I do understand that - but he said he knew I wouldn't have done it intentionally and didn't think I'd be cited for it. We had a chat, and I left the ground thinking that would be the end of the issue.

So I was absolutely staggered when I was charged on Monday evening after Leeds had informed the RFL that Richie Myler stood by his onfield allegations".

This is ridiculous.  Whether this was an accident or intentional, Myler would have felt the incident and is well within his rights to complain about it.  He should not be telling Myler to not make accusations and he should not be complaining when he has.  Myler is not the one at fault here.

"And even if people want to believe it was intentional, do they think I'd be that stupid to do it so blatantly with 20 cameras pointing at me"?

Yes.

 

I assume he expected Myler to turn around to him when he approached and said "Mate, you stuck your finger up my a^^^ - %)$£ off"

Otherwise I am sure Myler would have confronted Tomkins after the game? Right? 

 

Why would he complain to Tomkins, probably causing a fight/further argument, he probably wanted the brownfinger to not speak to him at all.

Tomkins continues to prove everyone's assumptions of him correct, that he is stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...