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

[LeeF]

57 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 ?

Not in this instance.
I’m fairly certain, without being the referee at the time, that he would not have seen it as a game stopping incident unlike the Philbin one. This is based on Hicks’ position to the incident with 1 angle of view at full speed etc

The guidance is to okay on until the next stoppage unless a Doctor enters the field of play

[LeeF]

55 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

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.

Which they do on a regular basis. There is a very high level of communications between Match Officials during a game
It depends upon one of the MO Team seeing the incident and then considering it foul play. 

[LeeF]

17 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

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. 

Your first sentence is correct but how long did Charnley have to stop himself from making contact?
A very rough rule of thumb on challenges on kickers would be 1 stride away them committed but 2 strides away you have chance to stop. A challenge on a kicker is much clearer for a defender compared to last night’s incident but if you watch closely you can see Charnley taking action to minimise any contact with his legs on Marshall. He didn’t use the knees like the Tomkins incident earlier in the thread and he didn’t kick him

[LeeF]

With all the comments saying that the game should have been stopped immediately for contact to the head is anyone seeing similarities with the discussion about the Griffin incident in the semi final?

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

12 minutes ago, LeeF said:

With all the comments saying that the game should have been stopped immediately for contact to the head is anyone seeing similarities with the discussion about the Griffin incident in the semi final?

No. 

Marshall lost the ball after a head shot.  Griffin dropped his prior to any contact.

[Jinking Jimmy]

44 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Which they do on a regular basis. There is a very high level of communications between Match Officials during a game
It depends upon one of the MO Team seeing the incident and then considering it foul play. 

Charnley’s boot clearly made contact with Marshall’s head. I thought it was accidental but the touch judge must have seen it and should have reported it. The touch judge should also have seen that there was some sort of contact between Ratchford and Hastings and should have reported that. Whether either incident would have resulted in the try being disallowed is another argument. 

[Barry Badrinath]

3 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Charnley’s boot clearly made contact with Marshall’s head. I thought it was accidental but the touch judge must have seen it and should have reported it. The touch judge should also have seen that there was some sort of contact between Ratchford and Hastings and should have reported that. Whether either incident would have resulted in the try being disallowed is another argument. 

did it? the version i saw last night was his shin hitting his head

[Saint Toppy]

I think Hicks made a glaring error in not going to the VR for this one (though he does have form for turning a blind eye to using the VR for incidents that favour Wire). Mamo did the right thing in playing on and to the whistle, but whether contact with the head was accidental or deliberate its not permitted within the rules as they stand now. How many times these days do we see first contact with the chest or shoulder and the arm bounce up and hit the head and a penalty be given, all the time now. Hicks should have referred it, at least to have a look as there's no way he could have determined in that split second whether there was head contact or if it was accidental or not.

Had he referred it i'm not sure if the decision would have been overturned or not as it did appear to be accidental (but that doesn't seem to matter now with the way penalties are given for head contact), but Hicks mistake was not even bothering to check - very poor officiating.

[Jinking Jimmy]

31 minutes ago, Barry Badrinath said:

did it? the version i saw last night was his shin hitting his head

Either way it was illegal, not necessarily deliberate, contact and should have been reported to the referee.

[Just Browny]

13 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Either way it was illegal, not necessarily deliberate, contact and should have been reported to the referee.

Not as 'clear' as you said then.

[Jinking Jimmy]

Just now, Just Browny said:

Not as 'clear' as you said then.

There was clear contact to the head. Would you disagree with that?

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

There was clear contact to the head. Would you disagree with that?

There was contact with Philbin and Thewlis' head too. But it doesn't make it a penalty.

Why are people claiming that accidental head contact is a penalty. It clearly isn't - there are so many examples of this. 

Tacklers are penalised for hitting the head (even if bouced up) as they have the whole body to tackle - they are meant to tackle in a controlled manner.

 

[Ant]

I wonder what many commentators think about an incident in a Giants v Wigan game, where Hanley slid in boots first to a Giants try scorer. Its seems you all think that should have been an 8 point try (which would have tied the game). 

I can only assume you will all now applaud any and every contact from a Wigan player against an opponents head being penalised.

[Jinking Jimmy]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There was contact with Philbin and Thewlis' head too. But it doesn't make it a penalty.

Why are people claiming that accidental head contact is a penalty. It clearly isn't - there are so many examples of this. 

Tacklers are penalised for hitting the head (even if bouced up) as they have the whole body to tackle - they are meant to tackle in a controlled manner.

 

If you took the time to read my previous comments you would see that I thought it was accidental but should have been looked at. I never said it should have been penalised. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

If you took the time to read my previous comments you would see that I never said it was deliberate and therefore subject to a penalty. It should, however, have been checked.

I didn't claim you did. In fact I said the opposite. 

You stated it was not deliberate, but illegal. That is exactly what I addressed (penalty for accidental). We see plenty of accidental head contact that is not deemed illegal.

[LeeF]

24 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Either way it was illegal, not necessarily deliberate, contact and should have been reported to the referee.

By whom 

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Charnley’s boot clearly made contact with Marshall’s head. I thought it was accidental but the touch judge must have seen it and should have reported it. The touch judge should also have seen that there was some sort of contact between Ratchford and Hastings and should have reported that. Whether either incident would have resulted in the try being disallowed is another argument. 

Why must they have seen it?

Have you seen the precise angle of viewing that they had?

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Charnley’s boot clearly made contact with Marshall’s head. I thought it was accidental but the touch judge must have seen it and should have reported it. The touch judge should also have seen that there was some sort of contact between Ratchford and Hastings and should have reported that. Whether either incident would have resulted in the try being disallowed is another argument. 

How do you know that they didn’t see it and thought it was ok. Their job is to make decisions.

Did you see Ratchford’s reaction which indicated that Hastings may have been play acting?

[Ant]

1 minute ago, LeeF said:

 

Did you see Ratchford’s reaction which indicated that Hastings may have been play acting?

Wigan players, feigning injury to delay play?

Surely some mistake...

[dkw]

2 hours ago, Davo5 said:

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

But the ref obviously had no idea it was a head injury, so the protocols are to stop play at the next completed tackle.

[Jim Prendle]

8 minutes ago, Ant said:

Wigan players, feigning injury to delay play?

Surely some mistake...

Your shoulders must be absolutely knackered carrying all those chips around.

[Barry Badrinath]

38 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Either way it was illegal, not necessarily deliberate, contact and should have been reported to the referee.

so it's not clear? its ambiguous at best, so i'll assume you're going to go edit your original post?

[Jim Prendle]

13 hours ago, my missus said:

mamo is a scroat and i predict a very short career for him.

Agreed. Regardless of the try he scored after taking ball out of the arms of an obviously injured player, his performance on being sin-binned just proves what a massive person who I hold in very low esteem he is.

 

[Saint Toppy]

22 minutes ago, LeeF said:

How do you know that they didn’t see it and thought it was ok. Their job is to make decisions.

Did you see Ratchford’s reaction which indicated that Hastings may have been play acting?

After whats happened this year I dont know how any Wire player can complain about 'play acting' given their teams record in it !!!

[JonM]

There isn't really much to debate here is there? Surely no-one seriously thinks you can kick a player in the head, pick up the ball that he drops as a direct result and go on score a try? It's a clear mistake by the officials.

I thought both of Marshall's tries were excellent. Also that Warrington showed a lot of resolve in defence - they haven't always looked like a team who'd grind out a win in difficult circumstances in recent seasons.