Jump to content

Recommended Posts


I haven't read Leefs link. I dont have the fortitude to do so. For some of us there seems to be a constant dripping erosion of trust and credibility. I know, I know...live with it- get over it- end off. I know.

TESTICULI AD  BREXITAM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He should have followed the lead of his fellow Liam, Farrell, who graciously accepted his zero game suspension after being found guilty of a head shot.

  • Like 6

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

He should have followed the lead of his fellow Liam, Farrell, who graciously accepted his zero game suspension after being found guilty of a head shot.

Unfair to expect Watts to make that comparison as they were charged with different offences, his being the more serious. Farrell was "High Tackle" whilst Watts was "Dangerous Contact". There is no offence called a "head shot".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Why would you appeal a one match ban? Seems he was poorly advised 

You'd think clubs would handle appeals on behalf of the players 

Link to post
Share on other sites

He had been playing well,this year,up to that point.

I think he may have blown his international chances.

More importantly, I hope Elijah Taylor makes a full recovery.

It would be nice to rid the sport of the deliberate act.

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to post
Share on other sites

The EXACT same offence was committed the week before by Mossop on Danny Richardson with no ban whatsoever. I say EXACT same offence when actually Mossop swung his arm with intent to cause serious harm, missing Richardson's head by luck rather than judgement

I think it's fair to understand why Wattsy felt the need to appeal.

 

 

Now then, it's a race between Sandie....and Fairburn....and the little man is in........yeees he's in.

I, just like those Castleford supporters felt that the ball should have gone to David Plange but he put the bit betwen his teeth...and it was a try

Kevin Ward - best player I have ever seen

DSC04156_edited-1_thumb.jpg

The real Mick Gledhill is what you see on here, a Bradford fan ........, but deep down knows that Bradford are just not good enough to challenge the likes of Leeds & St Helens.
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Kenilworth Tiger said:

The EXACT same offence was committed the week before by Mossop on Danny Richardson with no ban whatsoever. I say EXACT same offence when actually Mossop swung his arm with intent to cause serious harm, missing Richardson's head by luck rather than judgement

I think it's fair to understand why Wattsy felt the need to appeal.

 

 

I think where he's shot himself in the foot is his comments on social media. That was never going to go down well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Kenilworth Tiger said:

The EXACT same offence was committed the week before by Mossop on Danny Richardson with no ban whatsoever. I say EXACT same offence when actually Mossop swung his arm with intent to cause serious harm, missing Richardson's head by luck rather than judgement

I think it's fair to understand why Wattsy felt the need to appeal.

 

 

So Mossop should have been banned as well, not Watts getting off

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

The EXACT same offence was committed the week before by Mossop on Danny Richardson with no ban whatsoever. I say EXACT same offence when actually Mossop swung his arm with intent to cause serious harm, missing Richardson's head by luck rather than judgement

I think it's fair to understand why Wattsy felt the need to appeal.

 

 

So not exactly the same then, a late tackle (in the loosest term) as opposed to a shoulder charge in the back, much like Jack Hughes also got suspended for

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear God.....

Now then, it's a race between Sandie....and Fairburn....and the little man is in........yeees he's in.

I, just like those Castleford supporters felt that the ball should have gone to David Plange but he put the bit betwen his teeth...and it was a try

Kevin Ward - best player I have ever seen

DSC04156_edited-1_thumb.jpg

The real Mick Gledhill is what you see on here, a Bradford fan ........, but deep down knows that Bradford are just not good enough to challenge the likes of Leeds & St Helens.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched this incident back.  We have seen worse with just a penalty given let alone 10 minutes in the bin.  

Several incidents last weekend left me scratching my head on the decisions given.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is now the full minutes of the meeting on the RFL site and the case is well argued by the Disciplinary committee especially when they use a previous Castleford grade B charge which Castleford accepted.

From the explanation provided and having watched the incident albeit once I think the grading is correct for this case

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LeeF said:

There is now the full minutes of the meeting on the RFL site and the case is well argued by the Disciplinary committee especially when they use a previous Castleford grade B charge which Castleford accepted.

From the explanation provided and having watched the incident albeit once I think the grading is correct for this case

I can’t find that but either way, i disagree with the initial ban.  The yellow card dealt with it in my opinion.

Same game, Taylor is issued 2 cautions for the same Law as Watts.  How many does it take before these warrant further punishment?

Hull game, two illegal tackles to the lower leg.  The initial tackle (Powell) aimed more across the natural bending angle of the joint than the Brown tackle again, in my opinion based on experience.  Only one player given a yellow card.

I thought we were supposed to be cracking down on contacts to the head?  The Farrell hit on Griffin received a zero match penalty.  Baffling.

Never going to be perfect Lee but some of these need dealing with on the pitch rather than the disciplinary panel who seem (to me) to be trying make examples one minute and being max the next.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

I can’t find that but either way, i disagree with the initial ban.  The yellow card dealt with it in my opinion.

Same game, Taylor is issued 2 cautions for the same Law as Watts.  How many does it take before these warrant further punishment?

Hull game, two illegal tackles to the lower leg.  The initial tackle (Powell) aimed more across the natural bending angle of the joint than the Brown tackle again, in my opinion based on experience.  Only one player given a yellow card.

I thought we were supposed to be cracking down on contacts to the head?  The Farrell hit on Griffin received a zero match penalty.  Baffling.

Never going to be perfect Lee but some of these need dealing with on the pitch rather than the disciplinary panel who seem (to me) to be trying make examples one minute and being max the next.

 

 

The decision is on the Disciplinary page. Look for Watts’ charge.

The Watts grading & initial ban are correct IMO. The appeal on the grading was a punt that they lost

Cautions are kept on record so if they appear or are charged these are factored into any ban etc. I have seen reference made to them before.

The 2 “tackles” you refer to are interesting ones. Ian Smith very experienced ex ref said that they were slightly different hence why one sin bin the other not.

Head attacks either intentional or accidental definitely need addressing more severely. I have posted to that effect numerous times so I aren’t going to argue. 

The on pitch decision isn’t straightforward. One view at normal speed etc along with the knowledge you will be criticised, in some cases unfairly, if you get it wrong results in the lack of red cards IMO. There have been a number of instances where the Match Officials have been hung out to dry

Some of the tackles to the knee area are very difficult to see as it is usually the 3rd or even 4th man in but again, like head tackles, I’m not sure the message is being enforced by the Disciplinary 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeeF said:

The decision is on the Disciplinary page. Look for Watts’ charge.

The Watts grading & initial ban are correct IMO. The appeal on the grading was a punt that they lost

Cautions are kept on record so if they appear or are charged these are factored into any ban etc. I have seen reference made to them before.

The 2 “tackles” you refer to are interesting ones. Ian Smith very experienced ex ref said that they were slightly different hence why one sin bin the other not.

Head attacks either intentional or accidental definitely need addressing more severely. I have posted to that effect numerous times so I aren’t going to argue. 

The on pitch decision isn’t straightforward. One view at normal speed etc along with the knowledge you will be criticised, in some cases unfairly, if you get it wrong results in the lack of red cards IMO. There have been a number of instances where the Match Officials have been hung out to dry

Some of the tackles to the knee area are very difficult to see as it is usually the 3rd or even 4th man in but again, like head tackles, I’m not sure the message is being enforced by the Disciplinary 

Caution history.  Ok, I can understand that.  Doesn’t hat also apply to Taylor then? Or is it 3rd time lucky?

I have no doubt the Powell tackle went more against the knee hinge whereas Brown was unlucky in that both tacklers pushed the player over backwards as he tackled him. Both should’ve been yellow though and as has been mentioned earlier in the Hull/Wigan thread,  the Law states that no tackling to the lower leg by any 3rd 4th etc player is allowed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

Unfair to expect Watts to make that comparison as they were charged with different offences, his being the more serious. Farrell was "High Tackle" whilst Watts was "Dangerous Contact". There is no offence called a "head shot".

C’mon it’s Browny,surely your not expecting facts in one of his Wigan tirades.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Caution history.  Ok, I can understand that.  Doesn’t hat also apply to Taylor then? Or is it 3rd time lucky?

I have no doubt the Powell tackle went more against the knee hinge whereas Brown was unlucky in that both tacklers pushed the player over backwards as he tackled him. Both should’ve been yellow though and as has been mentioned earlier in the Hull/Wigan thread,  the Law states that no tackling to the lower leg by any 3rd 4th etc player is allowed.

The number of cautions isn’t stated but I have seen it used to give a slightly longer ban. The same rules will apply to Taylor

The lack of action against both “knee” and “high” tackles is a concern to me as I stated above

  • Like 1
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...