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

20 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Lam blaming the decisions now. That's got to signal the end of his Wigan career. You take it on the chin, gallant in defeat. Wasn't even controversial...

With Powell on the way you’d better get used to it.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The general consensus seems to be that the collision was accidental, so why are people so angry that the ref got the call right?

I was surprised that he didn't go to the VR, but when you see it it is hard to see how the decision would be any different.

because his foot was as close to his head as it could be... hence likely to hit him, which it did... hence some say it was dangerous play and a penalty.  as per Brown's comment.

If the ref had seen that he would have penalised. As it was he obviously didn't so played on.

So not angry here but I can understand Wigan coach comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

because his foot was as close to his head as it could be... hence likely to hit him, which it did... hence some say it was dangerous play and a penalty.  as per Brown's comment.

If the ref had seen that he would have penalised. As it was he obviously didn't so played on.

So not angry here but I can understand Wigan coach comment.

I don't think the ref would have penalised it. Collisions happen - just like Philbin went off with a head knock, but no foul play. I don;t think Charnley did anything wrong in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes 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.

Marshall is already on the ground and as Charnley approaches he makes no attempt to tackle with the hands. He barely even bends the knees. It's a penalty. Accident for sure. But a penalty. It's not like he can tackle him with his legs. All he could possibly have been attempting to do there was maybe kick the ball if it was loose, but it was in Marshall's hands at the time and you can't kick the ball out of someone's hands. Sam Tomkins got banned for doing the same thing against Wire in a Grand Final. Daryl Clark got the ball on the ground, Tomkins came in to tackle but went leg first and made contact with the head before completing a tackle. Although I think that incident also incorrectly went unpunished at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

The ref got the call wrong. It was contact to the head which is a penalty, accidental or not. You can't claim accidental contact and play on when Charnley hasn't even made any attempt to go with his hands. He's walked up to the player and kicked him in the head, albeit accidentally, while he's on the ground. Mamo then taking the ball from the hands of a clearly injured player is really poor sportsmanship.

Just look at the incident in the first half with Philbin. Isa immediately stops. He isn't even tackled but Hicks immediately stops play due to injury.

He should have stopped play immediately when Marshall went down, but having not done so it's staggering that he didn't go to the video ref. He must have been following the play so he must have seen it but still didn't refer it.

It's the wrong call and it's a big call so I'm not surprised Lam was fuming about that.

If HIcks didn't see it then why would he go to the video ref, it all depends on what the ref sees not what the TV viewer sees.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

Sam Tomkins got banned for doing the same thing against Wire in a Grand Final. Daryl Clark got the ball on the ground, Tomkins came in to tackle but went leg first and made contact with the head before completing a tackle. Although I think that incident also incorrectly went unpunished at the time.

Can't agree the incidents were similar. Tomkins went in knee first and it was far from a natural running motion as Charnley's was.

Tomkins.jpg.gallery.jpg

  • Like 3

Twitter: @TrylineUK
Latest Blog: Bringing the Game to a New Audience

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

Can't agree the incidents were similar. Tomkins went in knee first and it was far from a natural running motion as Charnley's was.

Tomkins.jpg.gallery.jpg

But the issue is still the same. Both incidents involve a player going into the ball carrier on the ground leg first rather than with their arms. Using the arms is the important bit. Charnley had time to avoid contact but didn't. Presumably he was expecting the ball to come loose but it didn't. Since the ball was in Marshall's hands and Charnley made no attempt to use his hands and made contact with the head then it's a penalty. Which seems to be how the ex-players in the studio saw the incident too.

Edited by EagleEyePie
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funnily enough Lam didn't seem to have a comment on the drop out given when Akauola caught the ball on the full in-goal, or the Wigan penalty for Marshall slapping Cooper.

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 comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

But the issue is still the same. Both incidents involve a player going into the ball carrier on the ground leg first rather than with their arms. Using the arms is the important bit. Charnley had time to avoid contact but didn't. Presumably he was expecting the ball to come loose but it didn't. Since the ball was in Marshall's hands and Charnley made no attempt to use his hands and made contact with the head then it's a penalty.

Think you need to get those eagle eyes checked.

  • Haha 4

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 comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

But the issue is still the same. Both incidents involve a player going into the ball carrier on the ground leg first rather than with their arms. Using the arms is the important bit. Charnley had time to avoid contact but didn't. Presumably he was expecting the ball to come loose but it didn't. Since the ball was in Marshall's hands and Charnley made no attempt to use his hands and made contact with the head then it's a penalty. Which seems to be how the ex-players in the studio saw the incident too.

Think the bit in bold is where we disagree mainly. I think it is very hard for Charnley to avoid contact.

In my view, as Marshall went to ground, Charnley put the breaks on and did all he could to avoid contact.

Different interpretations of the same incident I guess, which is why it's a talking point.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Twitter: @TrylineUK
Latest Blog: Bringing the Game to a New Audience

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chris22 said:

Think the bit in bold is where we disagree mainly. I think it is very hard for Charnley to avoid contact.

In my view, as Marshall went to ground, Charnley put the breaks on and did all he could to avoid contact.

Different interpretations of the same incident I guess, which is why it's a talking point.

That's fair enough. All I'd say to that is the rules don't give leeway for players who try to avoid contact. They just penalise the contact. If a player slips and contact is made to the head then it's a penalty even if the defending player would struggle to avoid it. It's been a cause of frustration undoubtedly but that's been the interpretation for a while now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Padge said:

If HIcks didn't see it then why would he go to the video ref, it all depends on what the ref sees not what the TV viewer sees.

I thought the point of the video ref was for things the ref doesnt see, from what you say the ref should only go to the video ref for things they see in which case if they have saw it then why go to the video ref

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, yipyee said:

I thought the point of the video ref was for things the ref doesnt see, from what you say the ref should only go to the video ref for things they see in which case if they have saw it then why go to the video ref

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.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where Wigan and Warrington are concerned I'm a complete neutral and I thought Wigan were pretty good tonight.

There really wasn't anything to choose between the teams and I thought most of the big decisions went Warrington's way.

Head injuries are a serious thing and I agree with the premise that any contact with the head accidental or not should be a penalty. If it seems not accidental then automatic sending off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

That's fair enough. All I'd say to that is the rules don't give leeway for players who try to avoid contact. They just penalise the contact. If a player slips and contact is made to the head then it's a penalty even if the defending player would struggle to avoid it. It's been a cause of frustration undoubtedly but that's been the interpretation for a while now.

Can you highlight that rule? 

Because people get hit in the head all the time, knees, hips, shoulders, feet, usually with no penalty, or even a suggestion of a penalty. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EagleEyePie said:

The ref got the call wrong. It was contact to the head which is a penalty, accidental or not. You can't claim accidental contact and play on when Charnley hasn't even made any attempt to go with his hands. He's walked up to the player and kicked him in the head, albeit accidentally, while he's on the ground. Mamo then taking the ball from the hands of a clearly injured player is really poor sportsmanship.

Just look at the incident in the first half with Philbin. Isa immediately stops. He isn't even tackled but Hicks immediately stops play due to injury.

He should have stopped play immediately when Marshall went down, but having not done so it's staggering that he didn't go to the video ref. He must have been following the play so he must have seen it but still didn't refer it.

It's the wrong call and it's a big call so I'm not surprised Lam was fuming about that.

I presume then you've spent 15 years complaining every time lockers didn't get penalised for his swinging arms.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Can you highlight that rule? 

Because people get hit in the head all the time, knees, hips, shoulders, feet, usually with no penalty, or even a suggestion of a penalty. 

Are you seriously suggesting someone going knee first into the head, shoulder first into the head or feet first into the head isn't a penalty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EagleEyePie said:

Are you seriously suggesting someone going knee first into the head, shoulder first into the head or feet first into the head isn't a penalty?

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

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

terrible decision a player is kicked in the head and nothing done about it, clearly marshall took the ball safely and held onto it until the kick in the head charnley will get a ban and possibly ratchford as well for a deliberate trip.

on the whole i thought it was a decent game if wigan had kicked the goals wire would have been under a lot more pessure and possibly folded.

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

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Through the fish-eyed lens of tear stained eyes
I can barely define the shape of this moment in time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Can you highlight that rule? 

Because people get hit in the head all the time, knees, hips, shoulders, feet, usually with no penalty, or even a suggestion of a penalty. 

Yep, normally because can not avoid. This was somewhat different to me....If someone is on the floor and your a few steps away,,, it seems daft to me if its not dangerous to run towards his head with your feet with a view to kick the ball... which was his intent as he didn't drop on to him or try and hold him down. 

He was on the floor with his head clearly unprotected, and Charnley came running in with his boots close to his head and then hit his head.

As I say he hit his head with his foot, and as Brown says, who knows the game more than me. he thought it was dangerous and should have been penalised.  

Different opinions ok... but for me it was dangerous and a penalty. 

 

Edited by redjonn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute 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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

Are you seriously suggesting someone going knee first into the head, shoulder first into the head or feet first into the head isn't a penalty?

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, my missus said:

terrible decision a player is kicked in the head and nothing done about it, clearly marshall took the ball safely and held onto it until the kick in the head charnley will get a ban and possibly ratchford as well for a deliberate trip.

on the whole i thought it was a decent game if wigan had kicked the goals wire would have been under a lot more pessure and possibly folded.

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

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

  • Confused 1

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

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...