Jump to content

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


Who will win?  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • Warrington Wolves
      28
    • Wigan Warriors
      10

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 28/07/21 at 19:15

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

So you don’t have any answer as to why the referee just ignored the player lying prone on the ground as he ran past him?

You have been extremely vocal in your defence of this guy and yet you can’t come up with any reason why he did that?

My description of Hicks actions during that play is not inaccurate, in fact I have just watched it again and as I said, he was 10 yards away when he went down, and was still down holding his head when Hicks ran past him. Maybe you should watch it again or, as seems the case, you haven’t even watched it at all.

Jim no problem with your view on going to the video ref, but prone on the ground, I watched the highlights back today( you can see as well at the game) he looked out then it shows him looking back watching Mamo racing down the field and then deciding to lie prone again, was he out or hoping, don’t know but I agree over the ref. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The view of the Match Review Panel - as expected, no charge.

 

Josh Charnley #2, Warrington

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Warrington v Wigan

Match Date:

2021-07-28

Incident:

Kicking in the 63rd minute

Decision:

No charge

Charge Detail:

Player is going to retrieve a dropped ball and when opponent picks the ball up, slows down to contact. Contact accidental.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, M j M said:

The view of the Match Review Panel - as expected, no charge.

 

Josh Charnley #2, Warrington

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Warrington v Wigan

Match Date:

2021-07-28

Incident:

Kicking in the 63rd minute

Decision:

No charge

Charge Detail:

Player is going to retrieve a dropped ball and when opponent picks the ball up, slows down to contact. Contact accidental.

Let the fun begin 👀

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jim Prendle said:

The player was prone on the ground after the contact, you can see that and so can I. The referee was 10 yards away, and then considerably closer when he ran past Marshall in an attempt to get up with play. At this point Marshall was still lying on the ground. If the ref can't see that the player was out of it from 5 yards away, and let's be clear he wasn't exactly running past at light speed, then I guess the discussion is over.

Regardless of whether or not the contact was accidental, or that the try was valid, Hicks should still have had the wherewithal to realise that a player not 5 yards away from him was possibly in a lot of trouble. 

You can defend Hick's performance all you like, and you obviously will, but his reading of that situation was poor, and you know it.

Are you advocating that the referee should have stopped the game instantly and not let the play complete?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, M j M said:

The view of the Match Review Panel - as expected, no charge.

 

Josh Charnley #2, Warrington

Competition:

Super League

Match:

Warrington v Wigan

Match Date:

2021-07-28

Incident:

Kicking in the 63rd minute

Decision:

No charge

Charge Detail:

Player is going to retrieve a dropped ball and when opponent picks the ball up, slows down to contact. Contact accidental.

Quite right too - as a Wigan fan, I watched the replay of that intently and there was no chance he kicked, no follow through etc. - think we should just put this one to bed to be honest.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Are you advocating that the referee should have stopped the game instantly and not let the play complete?

I'm not advocating anything. I am merely asking why this referee who made no mistakes all night according to the President of the RDL, didn't see fit to have the VR check the circumstances of the incident which left the player prone on the ground.

If, as has been suggested, the officials didn't see that Marshall was out of it despite two of them being within yards of him, then it should be off to Specsavers for the pair of them.

If it turned out that review deemed it accidental then fair enough but as we check many other lesser incidents I don't know why the ref would ignore that one.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Jim no problem with your view on going to the video ref, but prone on the ground, I watched the highlights back today( you can see as well at the game) he looked out then it shows him looking back watching Mamo racing down the field and then deciding to lie prone again, was he out or hoping, don’t know but I agree over the ref. 

Well, he failed his HIA and won't play in the coming games so if you are proposing that he was play acting then I suggest you are way off the mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

Well, he failed his HIA and won't play in the coming games so if you are proposing that he was play acting then I suggest you are way off the mark.

Okay I accept I was wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jim Prendle said:

I'm not advocating anything. I am merely asking why this referee who made no mistakes all night according to the President of the RDL, didn't see fit to have the VR check the circumstances of the incident which left the player prone on the ground.

If, as has been suggested, the officials didn't see that Marshall was out of it despite two of them being within yards of him, then it should be off to Specsavers for the pair of them.

If it turned out that review deemed it accidental then fair enough but as we check many other lesser incidents I don't know why the ref would ignore that one.

 

As I have stated a few times on here, I would prefer we go to the video ref less, not more and I back the ref's to trust their own opinion.

I think the replays confirmed that the contact with the head was accidental and didn't warrant a penalty and so the ref called it right. I would say well done to a ref having the confidence to call the incident and get it right.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...