Wed 28 Jul: SL: Warrington Wolves v Wigan Warriors KO 19:45 (TV)

[Padge]

1 minute ago, EagleEyePie said:

So what you're suggesting is events are only real if seen by the ref. Anything they miss never happened. Best let the disciplinary committee know their role is now redundant.

I am talking in the context of the live game, as you well know. Matches are reviewed and retrospective punishments can be applied.

[my missus]

2 minutes ago, Padge said:

I am talking in the context of the live game, as you well know. Matches are reviewed and retrospective punishments can be applied.

your digging a hole mate.

[HullWire]

Funny game that. Attack on both sides was poor, didn't seem either side had anyone wanting to take hold if the game. I think we (wire) stole that, without being very much better.

[Padge]

Just now, my missus said:

your digging a hole mate.

Hardly, explain to me how a ref, on the field of play, can make a decision on something he did not see.

 

[redjonn]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But that is quite a different point, that is a foul, and always has been. 

You are saying that now any accidental contact with the head is penalised. It isn't. Philbin went off with a head knock, no foul play, an accident. 

I guess no player goes to do a high tackle... they often hit the shoulder or ball and the arm jumps up to the players head... that is a penalty every time. 

as I say Charnley didn't consider the prone player and his head being unprotected from his big boots as he ran at him... not to tackle or hold him down... 

[my missus]

Just now, Padge said:

Hardly, explain to me how a ref, on the field of play, can make a decision on something he did not see.

 

refs make decisions on thing they don't see all the time thats why we have a video ref thats what they get paid for.

[Padge]

1 minute ago, my missus said:

refs make decisions on thing they don't see all the time thats why we have a video ref thats what they get paid for.

No they make decisions on what they think may have happened, if they think nothing happened they do not go to the video ref.

[EagleEyePie]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But that is quite a different point, that is a foul, and always has been. 

You are saying that now any accidental contact with the head is penalised. It isn't. Philbin went off with a head knock, no foul play, an accident. 

It's a different situation when defending players suffer contact to the head and always has been - they are the ones with the responsibility to tackle safely. The exception is obviously when an attacking player raises the arm/elbow in the tackle.

When defending players make contact with the head of an attacking player that's when it's a penalty. If a player makes contact with the head of a player with his feet first it's a penalty. The defending player has the responsibility to avoid contact that can be dangerous. In Charnley's case, Marshall is low to the ground but it's still Charnley's responsibility to avoid making contact with the head. He could have tried to avoid it, or try to effect a tackle with his hands. He didn't do either of those things presumably because he thought the ball was free to be kicked but that doesn't matter. He made direct contact to the head with his foot and it that's a penalty.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

It's a different situation when defending players suffer contact to the head and always has been - they are the ones with the responsibility to tackle safely. The exception is obviously when an attacking player raises the arm/elbow in the tackle.

When defending players make contact with the head of an attacking player that's when it's a penalty. If a player makes contact with the head of a player with his feet first it's a penalty. The defending player has the responsibility to avoid contact that can be dangerous. In Charnley's case, Marshall is low to the ground but it's still Charnley's responsibility to avoid making contact with the head. He could have tried to avoid it, or try to effect a tackle with his hands. He didn't do either of those things presumably because he thought the ball was free to be kicked but that doesn't matter. He made direct contact to the head with his foot and it that's a penalty.

Happy to disagree, for me it is a high speed rugby collision. But I can understand where you are coming from.

[yipyee]

43 minutes ago, Padge said:

You misunderstand, the ref thinks he 'may' have seen an obstruction, he goes to video ref to check. Ref knows he saw an an obstruction he awards a penalty. Ref doesn't see any obstruction, even if one actually happened, he plays on and doesn't go to VR.

There was a spell of the VR prompting the ref about incidents, after people complained about this they were told to stop it.

Its really very simple to understand.

He must have saw the incident and thought it was ok then, not as you quote that he didnt see it.

If the saints vs hull CC try was a try then this one was too. Only difference is the ref clearly saw that one and went to the video ref.

[my missus]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Happy to disagree, for me it is a high speed rugby collision. But I can understand where you are coming from.

high speed my arris one player is on the floor protecting the ball the other player kicks him in the head in order to gain an advantage.

[Padge]

4 minutes ago, yipyee said:

He must have saw the incident and thought it was ok then, not as you quote that he didnt see it.

If the saints vs hull CC try was a try then this one was too. Only difference is the ref clearly saw that one and went to the video ref.

Don't know how you work that out, if he didn't see it he had nothing to refer.

Even if he did see it and saw nothing in it he has nothing to refer.

A ref can look directly at an obstruction but not see it as an obstruction even if it was an obstruction. It can be angle of view, it can be speed of play, but if the ref saw no obstruction, or no possible obstruction it did not happen.

If he thinks, that may be obstruction you enter a different scenario.

Refs react to what they see, VR gives them an option to have someone look at what they think they might have seen, VR does not give them the option to look at something they didn't see.

 

[JohnM]

4 hours ago, Cheshire Setter said:

At full speed on the video replay Charnley runs towards Marshall who is slipping to the ground. No deliberate moving of the foot toward the player just a simple accident.

As I saw it, too. Then a clearly injured Marshall involuntarily released the ball and Mamo picked it up and ran off with it.  Unless he actually saw Marshall was injured and took advantage of that, what else was he to do?  Unfortunate, of course. 

Unwise of Lam in my view, to make an issue of it like that. If he really was angry about it he should have just said, "Oh, well, that's Warrington for you."

He'd have been far better off admitting that Wigan's lack of goal kicking cost us dear yet again. As the Sky team said, "Botica, Farrel, Richards......"

Unless there is a radical change at, we are looking at how things will be at Wigan for the forseeable future.

[Cheshire Setter]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

for me it is a high speed rugby collision

I think the problem with these sort of events is that we sometimes spend too much time watching the slow motion replay, and overthink it.

At full speed, Marshall slips over while Charnley is running in. There’s no way any decision could be made to avoid contact.

[CiderWire]

18 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

I think the problem with these sort of events is that we sometimes spend too much time watching the slow motion replay, and overthink it.

At full speed, Marshall slips over while Charnley is running in. There’s no way any decision could be made to avoid contact.

I think you've pretty much nailed it there CS. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 hour ago, Cheshire Setter said:

I think the problem with these sort of events is that we sometimes spend too much time watching the slow motion replay, and overthink it.

At full speed, Marshall slips over while Charnley is running in. There’s no way any decision could be made to avoid contact.

A point being made is that, like when a player ducks into a swinging arm, the offence flows from the contact with the head. Someone mentioned the Hull FC ball drop above - that’s entirely different, as no one touched him. Here it is simple enough, we had contact with the head, the player was hurt and then the ball came free. That sequence of events is not in dispute - it seems to me (and plenty of other, but not everyone) - that that could have resulted in a penalty. I don’t think we usually apply a “he didn’t mean it” or “to couldn’t have been avoided” test normally to head shots, but I may be wrong. 

Anyway, we only managed to score 8 points, so we would probably still have lost. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

A point being made is that, like when a player ducks into a swinging arm, the offence flows from the contact with the head. Someone mentioned the Hull FC ball drop above - that’s entirely different, as no one touched him. Here it is simple enough, we had contact with the head, the player was hurt and then the ball came free. That sequence of events is not in dispute - it seems to me (and plenty of other, but not everyone) - that that could have resulted in a penalty. I don’t think we usually apply a “he didn’t mean it” or “to couldn’t have been avoided” test normally to head shots, but I may be wrong. 

Anyway, we only managed to score 8 points, so we would probably still have lost. 

I think taking aside the match politics of this, there is an interesting discussion to be head on this, on a couple of levels. 

Firstly, my personal view is that it was a Rugby collision, I see no evidence of a kick, even in slow mo. But I can certainly understand EagleEye's view that there is a duty of care. That said, we also saw Philbin go off after a head collision and Thewlis' head split open after a collision with a stud. We do see Rugby incidents, and not all will be penalised. 

Secondly, and maybe the most important, and this goes back to the Saints incident is when should the ref stop the game? Is the protocol that the ref stops it at the next tackle? Because that is a key element of player welfare, as head incidents will always happen (as proven by the fact we had 3 last night). Fwiw I think it is fine to play on and for refs to stop play at the natural break, but some people still find it out of order to play on. I had no issue with Saints doing it, and had no issue with play on last night and the medics getting on to treat the player. 

I think the comparisons with last night's incident to high tackles are a bit of a red herring. I don't think a tackler ever has an excuse, although for the purposes of punishment he does have mitigants. But there is a view that Charnley was doing no more than running towards the ball - it was a high speed incident. Had he made a kick at the ball and kicked his head I would agree with the reckless claims and it should be a penalty, but I genuinely don't see that, I see somebody running and a player getting caught up in that at high speed. 

The claims of Charnley intentionally kicking somebody in the head to gain an advantage are pathetic, I am more sympathetic to the view that even accidental collisions could be pulled back, but I think we need to think clearly about the repercussions of that. 

[Cheshire Setter]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The claims of Charnley intentionally kicking somebody in the head to gain an advantage are pathetic, I am more sympathetic to the view that even accidental collisions could be pulled back

Even if the video ref had been called in to adjudicate, I think the try would have stood. If we penalise that particular incident, we could probably rule out every try last night based on some sort of accidental head contact in the tackles running up to each score.

It would be easier to make every player wear a head guard just in case.

[LeeF]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think taking aside the match politics of this, there is an interesting discussion to be head on this, on a couple of levels. 

Firstly, my personal view is that it was a Rugby collision, I see no evidence of a kick, even in slow mo. But I can certainly understand EagleEye's view that there is a duty of care. That said, we also saw Philbin go off after a head collision and Thewlis' head split open after a collision with a stud. We do see Rugby incidents, and not all will be penalised. 

Secondly, and maybe the most important, and this goes back to the Saints incident is when should the ref stop the game? Is the protocol that the ref stops it at the next tackle? Because that is a key element of player welfare, as head incidents will always happen (as proven by the fact we had 3 last night). Fwiw I think it is fine to play on and for refs to stop play at the natural break, but some people still find it out of order to play on. I had no issue with Saints doing it, and had no issue with play on last night and the medics getting on to treat the player. 

I think the comparisons with last night's incident to high tackles are a bit of a red herring. I don't think a tackler ever has an excuse, although for the purposes of punishment he does have mitigants. But there is a view that Charnley was doing no more than running towards the ball - it was a high speed incident. Had he made a kick at the ball and kicked his head I would agree with the reckless claims and it should be a penalty, but I genuinely don't see that, I see somebody running and a player getting caught up in that at high speed. 

The claims of Charnley intentionally kicking somebody in the head to gain an advantage are pathetic, I am more sympathetic to the view that even accidental collisions could be pulled back, but I think we need to think clearly about the repercussions of that. 

This is 

It wasn’t a kick by any sensible definition nor was it intentional 

[Davo5]

5 minutes ago, LeeF said:

This is 

It wasn’t a kick by any sensible definition nor was it intentional 

But should the game have been stopped after Charnley “accidentally” made contact to the head of a prone player which  resulted in the injured player losing contact with the ball ?

[Jinking Jimmy]

9 hours ago, Padge said:

The ref can only make a judgment on what he sees, if he didn't see it then it didn't happen.

If something happens that is considered to be foul play and the ref doesn’t see it then the touch judge should intervene. They are not just there to put their flag up when the ball goes into touch.

[Cheshire Setter]

24 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

But should the game have been stopped after Charnley “accidentally” made contact to the head of a prone player which  resulted in the injured player losing contact with the ball ?

It should if there is play continuing around the actual player concerned (players diving in to tackle etc), but in this case the ball carrier was already running 100m down the other end of the field. It had no bearing on Marshall's safety, and the medical staff were free to immediately come on to the field without interfering in play.

[Davo5]

2 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

It should if there is play continuing around the actual player concerned (players diving in to tackle etc), but in this case the ball carrier was already running 100m down the other end of the field. It had no bearing on Marshall's safety, and the medical staff were free to immediately come on to the field without interfering in play.

It was a head injury caused by a Warrington player,the game should have been stopped IMO

[sentoffagain2]

    Captains Challenge anyone.One each half you get the challenge back if right.Would it have been overuled .I would say 50/50 depends on which view the video ref takes.Mamo did the right thing in playing to the whistle and contact by Charnley was accidental.

[Exiled Wiganer]

3 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

    Captains Challenge anyone.One each half you get the challenge back if right.Would it have been overuled .I would say 50/50 depends on which view the video ref takes.Mamo did the right thing in playing to the whistle and contact by Charnley was accidental.

Something can be accidental and still be a penalty. Marshall was on the ground with the ball - what was likely to happen if Charley carried on running at him? We see penalties all the time for challenges on kickers which were the result of a player’s momentum. I think it’s an academic debate, as we would have lost anyway, but it’s a toss of a coin for me.