Sun 4th Jul: SL: St Helens v Wigan Warriors KO 19:30 (TV)

[dkw]

35 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Look at the incident from which Isa was sin binned. After the tip tackle he tackled Grace who held his head footballer style although there was clearly no contact.

When he banged his head on the ground, that one?

[OMEGA]

27 minutes ago, yipyee said:

I can add to this as it maybe a knee jerk reaction and similar to a 2 footed lunge in football, when done correctly is perfectly fine, when it goes wrong it can end a players career or can lead to a lengthy spell on the injured list.

In both cases of shoulder charges and 2 footed lunges in football the attacker can change position and once your committed you cant pull out and its this lack of safety and a certainty that it can go wrong that a welfare decision was made by rule makers. 

Lets also remember FT players now spend all day in the gym becoming faster, stronger and more powerfull than ever. Rules need to change with the times.

I understand your analogy but they’re not the same!

A footballer making a two footed challenge is off his feet, in the air and has no control whatsoever as a result of that. Also there are many many documented and extreme examples of a two footed challenge causing injury.

A Rugby League player has control right up to the point of contact and can even reduce the level of impact right up to the point of collision. To my knowledge there are absolutely no examples of a shoulder charge causing any extra injury, serious or otherwise, above and beyond a normal tackle or collision. Rugby League already had rules in place to outlaw contact with the head of an opponent whether that was with a shoulder, an elbow, a forearm or a fist.

Again, there is no evidence, Medical or Scientific that evidences any need for the shoulder charge to be removed. The game is a high impact collision sport and injuries occur in all manner of ways, many of them can be evidenced to show they are the cause of injury but they aren’t banned while the shoulder charge was banned because of an over reaction to the Dean Young & Tangi Ropati tackles.

Tonight we saw an example of the repercussions of the shoulder charge ban on a defending player. When Sts player Thompson was allowed to carry the ball at speed, rotating his torso to lead with the shoulder into a Wigan defender. The defender is not allowed to meet that carry with a lead shoulder and therefore has to open up his sternum to the shoulder of the attacking player, now that is a recipe for injury. This is an imbalance in the collision which puts the defender in danger and it’s wholly created by the Governing bodies banning of the shoulder charge!

So what next, ban the ball carrier from rotating his torso and leading with the shoulder?

Where does that leave us as a sport because for me one of our most vital USPs is the gladiatorial nature of our players, their toughness and the spectacular collisions spectators have marvelled at for a century.

[Davo5]

2 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Big effort by Liam Farrell in that first half. 25 moans without a rest. 

3 less than you though.

[yipyee]

1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said:

You realise that didn’t happen how you’re saying it, right? The score was 4-4, so Wigan weren’t “stopped” from winning anything. 

My point is they will turn a corner, the previous post is calling out bad leadership and the chairman, I clearly stated a fact that the club won the LLS and narrowly lost the final. Loosing 5 in a row can happen to any team but they just need to stick together and get through this sticky patch...

For the record I am a saints fan

[yipyee]

56 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

I understand your analogy but they’re not the same!

A footballer making a two footed challenge is off his feet, in the air and has no control whatsoever as a result of that. Also there are many many documented and extreme examples of a two footed challenge causing injury.

A Rugby League player has control right up to the point of contact and can even reduce the level of impact right up to the point of collision. To my knowledge there are absolutely no examples of a shoulder charge causing any extra injury, serious or otherwise, above and beyond a normal tackle or collision. Rugby League already had rules in place to outlaw contact with the head of an opponent whether that was with a shoulder, an elbow, a forearm or a fist.

Again, there is no evidence, Medical or Scientific that evidences any need for the shoulder charge to be removed. The game is a high impact collision sport and injuries occur in all manner of ways, many of them can be evidenced to show they are the cause of injury but they aren’t banned while the shoulder charge was banned because of an over reaction to the Dean Young & Tangi Ropati tackles.

Tonight we saw an example of the repercussions of the shoulder charge ban on a defending player. When Sts player Thompson was allowed to carry the ball at speed, rotating his torso to lead with the shoulder into a Wigan defender. The defender is not allowed to meet that carry with a lead shoulder and therefore has to open up his sternum to the shoulder of the attacking player, now that is a recipe for injury. This is an imbalance in the collision which puts the defender in danger and it’s wholly created by the Governing bodies banning of the shoulder charge!

So what next, ban the ball carrier from rotating his torso and leading with the shoulder?

Where does that leave us as a sport because for me one of our most vital USPs is the gladiatorial nature of our players, their toughness and the spectacular collisions spectators have marvelled at for a century.

I think your credability goes out of the window when you think thompson played tonight.

Also you ignore my point of up until 25 years ago the players were amateur players picking up a match fee and didnt spend all day in tge gym becoming faster and fitter.

You also name other sports like NFL which use a lot of padding and crash helmets.

Shoulder charges are dangerous and whilst when done correctly were ok its not worth the risk of when this goes wrong.

I get your point but player welfare should come first, you clearly have a disregard to this so you can cheer big hits with the shoulder every now and then.

[yipyee]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

When he banged his head on the ground, that one?

Isa was out of order twice in that game, should have been in the bin after hitting an injured player.

At some point the ref needs to get hold of a game and clearly showed leaniancy in the first half

[GUBRATS]

Overall I thought Child's reffed the game quite well , only criticism was he was lenient on ISA , who committed 4 potential card offences , 2 that could have been red 

[Saint Toppy]

49 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Overall I thought Child's reffed the game quite well , only criticism was he was lenient on ISA , who committed 4 potential card offences , 2 that could have been red 

I agree, aside from not showing Isa a red card it wasn't the ref who was the main influence on that game it was the poor weather conditions.

Saints were the dominant team without playing particularly well

Interesting decision for Woolf this week on the Wakey game, whether he puts out a strong team to build momentum and match fitness before Wembley given the lack of matches over the last month, or whether he plays half a team ?  

[Jinking Jimmy]

10 hours ago, dkw said:

When he banged his head on the ground, that one?

Watch it again. The right side if Grace’s head did make contact with the ground but he then put his hand to the other side as if claiming contact from Isa.

[FearTheVee]

I think Wigan fans (and players on Twitter, a good look) complaining about the ref would do better to wonder why their own team is in a place where they have to spend all game desperately trying to stop a game of rugby breaking out by being a niggly, ill disciplined rabble.

Good win for Saints, impressive first half.  Second half is irrelevant as the conditions were practically unplayable by then.

Great to see Percy back and getting through 80 minutes.

[Exiled Wiganer]

16 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

I think Wigan fans (and players on Twitter, a good look) complaining about the ref would do better to wonder why their own team is in a place where they have to spend all game desperately trying to stop a game of rugby breaking out by being a niggly, ill disciplined rabble.

Good win for Saints, impressive first half.  Second half is irrelevant as the conditions were practically unplayable by then.

Great to see Percy back and getting through 80 minutes.

They could do both, given the increased mental capacity once you cross Billinge Hill.

In a game like that in those conditions, the ref is going to be making far more judgment calls. From what I saw, he was more comfortable making judgment calls against us. That said, there was a clear gap between the sides so there was no question of an unjust result. 
 

The big question for us going forward is whether we can get Bateman, Hardaker and Fieid on the field (assuming Manfredi won’t play again). If so, I expect we will be able to score at a faster rate than once every hour. 

[Harry Stottle]

After watching 80 mins of pure boredom by both teams, I couldn't be bothered to read the after match comments on these pages so I have just caught up.

The main topic is not the Rugby which was on show but the refereeing being criticised, funnily enough when a match is good and the teams perform well the ref barely gets a mention, not a chance of that taking place during and after this game.

It was a shocker, and as I alluded to in another thread - still live - there are far more bad games than good ones in SL these days, and it will take something very radical to reverse the trend that has been gathering pace season on season for a while now, we are definatley short of talent and the rule changes of recent seasons are not helping the game at the spectator level, no wonder - pre epidemic - attendances were dropping off and they will drop much further in comparrison to pre Covid when the lockdown finishes with the amount of carp that is being televised.

[GUBRATS]

27 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

They could do both, given the increased mental capacity once you cross Billinge Hill.

In a game like that in those conditions, the ref is going to be making far more judgment calls. From what I saw, he was more comfortable making judgment calls against us. That said, there was a clear gap between the sides so there was no question of an unjust result. 
 

The big question for us going forward is whether we can get Bateman, Hardaker and Fieid on the field (assuming Manfredi won’t play again). If so, I expect we will be able to score at a faster rate than once every hour. 

He did indeed make judgement calls , must have judged ISA to have slipped in the rain on 3 occasions , or maybe the rain was so heavy he didn't see Percival kneeling in front of him 

[bobbruce]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

He did indeed make judgement calls , must have judged ISA to have slipped in the rain on 3 occasions , or maybe the rain was so heavy he didn't see Percival kneeling in front of him 

Was interesting all the fuss Wigan fans made about playing on while a player was injured. I didn’t realise the best way to deal with it was to deliberately and unnecessarily run over the top of the injured player. 

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Was interesting all the fuss Wigan fans made about playing on while a player was injured. I didn’t realise the best way to deal with it was to deliberately and unnecessarily run over the top of the injured player. 

Indeed Jamie Acton and Gregg Bird comes to mind 

[John Drake]

Various posts removed.

Here's a tip: if you want to complain about people abusing referees on another platform, in this case Twitter, then don't start abusing other members of this forum in the process of doing so, because not only do you invalidate your whole point, you contribute to infecting this forum with the kind of nasty, ignorant, unmoderated drivel that passes for normal on other platforms, which we have always worked really hard to stop on here.

Everyone on this thread has been on TRL long enough to know our rules inside out. The heat of a live match thread does not invalidate those rules, it makes it even more essential for everyone to observe them.

Cut out the cursing and the personal abuse. We don't want it on here, and if you can't avoid indulging in it, please go off to air your views on Twitter instead, we don't want you on here.

Thank you.

[dkw]

3 hours ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Watch it again. The right side if Grace’s head did make contact with the ground but he then put his hand to the other side as if claiming contact from Isa.

No he didnt, not even anything like this. Why you making things up?

[Jinking Jimmy]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

No he didnt, not even anything like this. Why you making things up?

Oh dear. I must have watched the wrong incident in the wrong game or perhaps not. I took the trouble to view it again before I made the comment. Perhaps you should do the same.

[FearTheVee]

8 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Oh dear. I must have watched the wrong incident in the wrong game or perhaps not. I took the trouble to view it again before I made the comment. Perhaps you should do the same.

Man raises hand to head after head bangs into ground - what a rascal eh.

[Jinking Jimmy]

4 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Man raises hand to head after head bangs into ground - what a rascal eh.

Would be believable if it were to the side of his head that had some contact.

[FearTheVee]

17 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Would be believable if it were to the side of his head that had some contact.

I agree - I mean it's far more likely he put his hand to his head for your reason than for the reason of his head banging into the ground.

[OMEGA]

16 hours ago, yipyee said:

I think your credability goes out of the window when you think thompson played tonight.

Also you ignore my point of up until 25 years ago the players were amateur players picking up a match fee and didnt spend all day in tge gym becoming faster and fitter.

You also name other sports like NFL which use a lot of padding and crash helmets.

Shoulder charges are dangerous and whilst when done correctly were ok its not worth the risk of when this goes wrong.

I get your point but player welfare should come first, you clearly have a disregard to this so you can cheer big hits with the shoulder every now and then.

My mistake on Thompson, I only got a fleeting glance at the player after the collision but if you want to dismiss my point because I misidentified a player then go ahead.

I used a number of other collision sports that have or do engage the ‘Shoulder Charge’ in some form or another. None of them has any studies that show the shoulder charge dangerously places the participants in extra danger!

Show me the proof that shoulder charges are dangerous, point me in the direction of a study that concludes that? I’ll willingly concede this point if you can definitively show me evidence, Medical, Scientific or even case studies that clearly show the shoulder charge caused injuries above and beyond a traditional tackle. 

I played the game at every level for 25 years, my understanding of the dangers of the sport are pretty deep as I’ve got the scars, broken bones, spinal nerve damage, the arthritic joints and misaligned fingers so you can’t play that card.

The game brought in strong rules to outlaw contact with the head, they are there to punish players who get their tackle technique wrong or commit intentional foul play. There was no need or argument to ban the shoulder charge

[Harry Stottle]

41 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

My mistake on Thompson, I only got a fleeting glance at the player after the collision but if you want to dismiss my point because I misidentified a player then go ahead.

I used a number of other collision sports that have or do engage the ‘Shoulder Charge’ in some form or another. None of them has any studies that show the shoulder charge dangerously places the participants in extra danger!

Show me the proof that shoulder charges are dangerous, point me in the direction of a study that concludes that? I’ll willingly concede this point if you can definitively show me evidence, Medical, Scientific or even case studies that clearly show the shoulder charge caused injuries above and beyond a traditional tackle. 

I played the game at every level for 25 years, my understanding of the dangers of the sport are pretty deep as I’ve got the scars, broken bones, spinal nerve damage, the arthritic joints and misaligned fingers so you can’t play that card.

The game brought in strong rules to outlaw contact with the head, they are there to punish players who get their tackle technique wrong or commit intentional foul play. There was no need or argument to ban the shoulder charge

And all the while, it is still legal for the ball carrier to lead with his shoulder, if a tackler mistimes his movement and gets crunched in the head it's the tacklers problem, talk about double standards?

[OMEGA]

10 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

And all the while, it is still legal for the ball carrier to lead with his shoulder, if a tackler mistimes his movement and gets crunched in the head it's the tacklers problem, talk about double standards?

Exactly the point I was making!

Good luck to the outside backs, halves and even second towers who have to open their bodies up to a  rampaging Jason Tamalola, ball securely tucked under his arm and leading with his shoulder into the collision 

[Josef K]

22 hours ago, dkw said:

I don't think that was late really, players have to be allowed to commit to tackles. I understand why there's a push on looking after players but that's incredibly harsh.

Actually I take that back, it's a shoulder charge so I can see why ge was done for that. But a yellow was definitely 

22 hours ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Coote stays down “injured” and then back on his feet seconds later to attempt the penalty. The game is going soft and cheats like him don’t help.

 

 

 

 

Sadly i have to agree with Coote milking it, but it’s not something new it has always gone on.