Thurs 17th March : SL : Wigan Warriors v Castleford Tigers KO. 8:00pm SKY

[AB90]

16 minutes ago, MZH said:

Agreed. All the players know the risks and agree to play anyway. RL is a game where you can pick up a concussion despite everything happening completely within the rules of the game. You cannot completely eradicate it.

The problem in the past isn't that head injuries happened, it was the care (or lack of) given to the players that had been injured. How often did we used to see players get up and stagger back into the line whilst the commentators laughed about how they didn't know what day it was. That was the part that we needed to fix up, and on the whole I think we are doing a decent job with that. Physios are on very quick at the first sign of a head knock and the HA protocols seem to be fairly robust. As long as those things are in place and the sport is showing a duty of care to injured players, then handing out a few cards isn't going to make any difference in a potential lawsuit.

Yeah, completely agree. And the data shows that the defender making the tackle is far more likely to receive a blow to the head/concussion than the attacker with the ball. And these generally occur from accidental ‘rugby’ incidents (head clash, getting your head in the wrong place, knee to the head, hip to the head etc). A head high tackle very rarely results in a failed HIA for the attacker.

As long as the concussion protocols are in place (guided by doctors) then the game is providing the players with the appropriate duty of care. 

And as you say, the players know the risk and there are different physical risks in every single occupation or sport. If your concerned about……

Potentially increasing your chances of brain damage - don’t become a boxer.

Potentially increasing your chances of serious shoulder damage - don’t become a rugby player.

Potentially increasing your chances of serious knee issues - don’t become a footballer or rugby player.

Potentially increasing your chances of being involved in a motor accident - don’t become an F1 driver.

Potentially increasing your chances of been killed by a shark or getting skin cancer - don’t become a professional surfer.

So on and so forth.

[Wholly Trinity]

1 hour ago, MZH said:

I think pretty much everyone is in agreement that the yellow card for Fonua was just not a yellow. There may have been some head on head contact, but I'm not even sure that there was, and if there was, it was accidental and not at all forceful. 

I'll be more concerned if the disciplinary decide to hand out a ban to go with it. If it was just down to over zealous refereeing then I'm ok with that. Mistakes happen and I would imagine the refs are under a lot of pressure right now to clamp down. However if they also hand him a ban they will effectively be saying that the game is heading in a direction that 99% of fans (and players) don't want to see it go in.

I think the refs take their cue from flexing of the neck. His head did seem to shoot backwards quickly, which seems to suggest some clash of heads or contact.

In isolation this is seen as an indicator of foul play and prompts a yellow card under current interpretations. I doubt the review will find anything untoward, but the clampdown is in full swing and anything like that is likely to be 10 minutes.

[Dave T]

10 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Ill just add, I don’t blame the referees here, they are being told to do this

I'm late to the discussion as didn't watch all the game last night but I have two thoughts on this. 

Firstly, I have no issues with the clampdown on late hits and high tackles. I think it is right we bin players until they stop doing it. 

But, that doesn't exonerate the refs from making mistakes. There have been a couple which have been over zealous and that absolutely can be the refs getting it wrong. It doesn't mean that is what they have been told. So the refs should (and will in review sessions) be held to account. Just as they can get knock ons wrong, they can get late hits wrong. 

Secondly, on this one specifically, was he binned for head contact? I noticed that the England Union player was sent off last week in the 2nd minute for making contact with the head. Fonua hit the other player with his head, it'll be interesting to know whether this was the reason when it comes to the disciplinary, as I agree it wasn't late, or a shoulder or similar. 

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, MZH said:

I think pretty much everyone is in agreement that the yellow card for Fonua was just not a yellow. There may have been some head on head contact, but I'm not even sure that there was, and if there was, it was accidental and not at all forceful. 

I'll be more concerned if the disciplinary decide to hand out a ban to go with it. If it was just down to over zealous refereeing then I'm ok with that. Mistakes happen and I would imagine the refs are under a lot of pressure right now to clamp down. However if they also hand him a ban they will effectively be saying that the game is heading in a direction that 99% of fans (and players) don't want to see it go in.

I must admit, the head on head thing is the bit of this tackle that could be seen as dangerous. Fonua did nothing to move his head to the side of the player at all. It's not unlike how Graham used to tackle, he used to have claims that he was using his head intentionally on players. 

It'll be interesting to see what the disciplinary say. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm late to the discussion as didn't watch all the game last night but I have two thoughts on this. 

Firstly, I have no issues with the clampdown on late hits and high tackles. I think it is right we bin players until they stop doing it. 

But, that doesn't exonerate the refs from making mistakes. There have been a couple which have been over zealous and that absolutely can be the refs getting it wrong. It doesn't mean that is what they have been told. So the refs should (and will in review sessions) be held to account. Just as they can get knock ons wrong, they can get late hits wrong. 

Secondly, on this one specifically, was he binned for head contact? I noticed that the England Union player was sent off last week in the 2nd minute for making contact with the head. Fonua hit the other player with his head, it'll be interesting to know whether this was the reason when it comes to the disciplinary, as I agree it wasn't late, or a shoulder or similar. 

As per the post above yours, the fact of causing 'whiplash' is obviously something the refs are looking out for - in conjunction with other things - when deciding whether or not it is a yellow card.

I think this one was harsh.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I must admit, the head on head thing ...

An aside that may be relevant here is that head on head hits will see you expelled from an American Football game for the rest of the match.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

An aside that may be relevant here is that head on head hits will see you expelled from an American Football game for the rest of the match.

I'm not encouraging anyone to search out a Union clip, but an England player was red carded last week for head on head. Its what made me think of this. James Graham got stick for it and it was dangerous. 

I don't think we have seen penalties for it here though so not sure if that is even relevant to this incident. But I didn't see any other offence. 

[Jughead]

The Wigan player’s head whips back. I can’t dispute that, not that I would want to, as it’s clear. I’m not sure it’s particularly late though, which the graphic on the TV screen indicated. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Jughead said:

The Wigan player’s head whips back. I can’t dispute that, not that I would want to, as it’s clear. I’m not sure it’s particularly late though, which the graphic on the TV screen indicated. 

Just watching it again, the ref says it's late as he bins him. Fonua disagrees and Kebdall says it is. 

So it appears it's nothing other than late, which is a rubbish call imo. 

If the criteria is that the player has passed (which on paper sounds fine) then we could be in some trouble. 

But I think back to that Hull v Saints game where Griffin kicked off at a late hit after a kick which wasn't late and the ref said no penalty, despite the fact the ball had technically gone. The ref said that wasn't late, so it can't just be that not holding the ball equals late. 

It all suggests that Kendall and the VR just made a bad call. 

[Harry Stottle]

8 hours ago, JohnM said:

Maybe, just maybe, handing out cards when justified, as in tonight's game, means that the sport is doing the right thing  and therefore won't get "sued".

For those who think the game is pushing up the daisies, an ex-game, bereft of life, you don't really have the power to change anything. It'll be your loss if you desert, and your places will soon be taken by a younger,  more appreciative audience generated from the huge increase in the live coverage of games this season. 

That is most probably the calculated gamble that is being taken by the authorities John, they must be well aware of the reaction that these "new interpretations" of long time laws are creating amongst the coaches, player's, commentators and most importantly the fan's of this sport.

I cannot share your enthusiasm that if supporters of many years 'desert' they will 'soon' be replaced by a younger audience, off course some newbies will be attracted and come along but in my expierience I believe this game of ours benefits from an hereditary factor, if an elder family member is a fan the more likely 'junior' will follow suit be that grandfather, father, mother, uncle, aunt or elder sibling chances are much reduced if that influence is removed. 

So in my opinion we come down to a timing issue, will these 'new interpretations' create an exodus of fans, yes, with the early reactions they are generating they could very well do, will these fans be replaced by enough newbies just to maintain the numbers 'soon' by new subscribers both on and off the terraces, I don't think so.

[Ant]

The VR was the same ref that sin binned McGillvary last week for an even less innocuous hit 

Maybe it's just that ref needs re-education 

[JohnM]

Getting back on topic, I felt overall that the score correctly illustrated the difference between the two teams. In my view, both teams have a lot of work to do, and Wigan really need to beef up their forwards. 

On the specific case of the yellow and red cards, que sera, sera.  

On the more  general issue of "the players know the risk" : I tthink this is just not correct. They don't . We don't . The game doesn't.  There are unknown risks and as they become known over time, he game has to take action to mitigate the risk. A case in point: the games response to bleeding modified as knowledge of the risks of infection became known.  hepatitis:  https://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/mar/01/infectiousdiseases.medicineandhealth

As for the game having "gone", that is just not true.

[JohnM]

5 minutes ago, Ant said:

The VR was the same ref that sin binned McGillvary last week for an even less innocuous hit 

Maybe it's just that ref needs re-education 

There is another view. Maybe it's just some fans that need re-educating. 

[Archie Gordon]

We are still seeing the early season pendulum swings with ref decisions. It will, I hope, settle down to something reasonable as refs, players and officials find a happy medium. Meanwhile, everyone on twitter who says they've burnt their season ticket or watched their last game after seven decades of support will be watching next week.

[JohnM]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

That is most probably the calculated gamble that is being taken by the authorities John, they must be well aware of the reaction that these "new interpretations" of long time laws are creating amongst the coaches, player's, commentators and most importantly the fan's of this sport.

I cannot share your enthusiasm that if supporters of many years 'desert' they will 'soon' be replaced by a younger audience, off course some newbies will be attracted and come along but in my expierience I believe this game of ours benefits from an hereditary factor, if an elder family member is a fan the more likely 'junior' will follow suit be that grandfather, father, mother, uncle, aunt or elder sibling chances are much reduced if that influence is removed. 

So in my opinion we come down to a timing issue, will these 'new interpretations' create an exodus of fans, yes, with the early reactions they are generating they could very well do, will these fans be replaced by enough newbies just to maintain the numbers 'soon' by new subscribers both on and off the terraces, I don't think so.

I agree with the "hereditary" point, though I think the effect is reducing as successive generations become geographically separated through changes in housing, education and employment patterns. 

I also  think that "exodus" suffers from the same exaggeration that may be detected in my post.

 

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, AB90 said:

There is no evidence to suggest that the sport won’t be allowed to exist in todays world of duty of care as it currently stands.
 

Will UFC, Boxing, Rugby Union, American Football, Gaelic Football, Aussie Rules and any other contact sport be able to exist in the future as they all have risks in potentially increasing the chance of brain damage should you ‘choose’ to do them?

This is exactly what our and many other sports administrators will be faced with, I don't expect that any participants of contact sports who initially choose to do them do so with any fear that in the future they will suffer later life consequences and consider well if that does happen I will be able to sue!

I make no apologies in saying that anyone who plays sport for lifestyle and monetary gain should realise there is a miniscule chance that injury could happen to them, if they do or if don't they should be told so and invited to sign a contract for their governing body to exonerate them from future liabilities, it is the players decision to make.

 

[Harry Stottle]

27 minutes ago, JohnM said:

There is another view. Maybe it's just some fans that need re-educating. 

Or maybe others are just to easily pleased with the present interpretations.

[Lowdesert]

58 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Just watching it again, the ref says it's late as he bins him. Fonua disagrees and Kebdall says it is. 

So it appears it's nothing other than late, which is a rubbish call imo. 

If the criteria is that the player has passed (which on paper sounds fine) then we could be in some trouble. 

But I think back to that Hull v Saints game where Griffin kicked off at a late hit after a kick which wasn't late and the ref said no penalty, despite the fact the ball had technically gone. The ref said that wasn't late, so it can't just be that not holding the ball equals late. 

It all suggests that Kendall and the VR just made a bad call. 

It remains to be seen what the panel decide whether it was ‘late’ or whether it was a genuine attempt to intercept the ball and there was a collision.  Fonua was very close with his left hand and maybe even got contact.

Kendall was within spitting distance of Griffins try, yet went to the VR.   I found that strange.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

Meanwhile, everyone on twitter who says they've burnt their season ticket or watched their last game after seven decades of support will be watching next week.

Yup.

My favourite from a part time job in customer services a lifetime ago being the people who do ceremoniously burn their season ticket/membership/loyalty card and then return the next day asking if you can stick it back together for them.

[Kenilworth Tiger]

I'm not going to lie - I turned it off with 10 mins to go - genuinely

I feared we would get walloped tonight with the amount of injuries we had but was really pleased with how we played 

However, I will not spend my time getting more and more wound up by a game being ruined by discussing controversial moments 80% of the time.

We even had 2 minutes of discussing whether Eden should have picked it up or fallen on it.

The players who take to the filed are incredibly skillful, strong and entertaining and we seem to be doing everything possible to reign that in.

The fact that JohnM seems to be the only person in the universe who agrees with the Fonua sin bin tells you all you need to know.

I'm done

[del capo]

36 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

It remains to be seen what the panel decide whether it was ‘late’ or whether it was a genuine attempt to intercept the ball and there was a collision.  Fonua was very close with his left hand and maybe even got contact.

Kendall was within spitting distance of Griffins try, yet went to the VR.   I found that strange.

Fonua crouching ready for a good hit. I called this at half time as  'head on head' a few pages ago and got ridiculed.

Now maybe other posters have  had a look and are thinking....

Definitely not deliberate but in the current climate has to be a 10 min yellow. I expect the Discipline will agree and no further action necessary.......

Sky punters and presenters up to their usual high standards of coverage on this one......

[DI Keith Fowler]

Didn't watch the game but saw a clip of the incident. Obviously very, very harsh. I'm not as worried as some about the future of the sport because I think this is very much a case of a fundamental shift in the rules that the refs and players are still coming to grips with. It's early in the season and the right balance hasn't really been found yet, if it's still like this at the end of the season then I'll be worried. 

[Kenilworth Tiger]

3 minutes ago, del capo said:

Fonua crouching ready for a good hit. I called this at half time as  'head on head' a few pages ago and got ridiculed.

Now maybe other posters have  had a look and are thinking....

Definitely not deliberate but in the current climate has to be a 10 min yellow. I expect the Discipline will agree and no further action necessary.......

Sky punters and presenters up to their usual high standards of coverage on this one......

Kendall clearly sent him to the sinbin as it was "late" - no mention whatsoever of head on head

[Kenilworth Tiger]

Just now, DI Keith Fowler said:

Didn't watch the game but saw a clip of the incident. Obviously very, very harsh. I'm not as worried as some about the future of the sport because I think this is very much a case of a fundamental shift in the rules that the refs and players are still coming to grips with. It's early in the season and the right balance hasn't really been found yet, if it's still like this at the end of the season then I'll be worried. 

But this shift in adapting will just lead to canny half backs running at the line and eith milking a penalty or scoring a thousand tries a season as the defence are afraid to commit

 

[JohnM]

7 minutes ago, Kenilworth Tiger said:

I'm not going to lie - I turned it off with 10 mins to go - genuinely

I feared we would get walloped tonight with the amount of injuries we had but was really pleased with how we played 

However, I will not spend my time getting more and more wound up by a game being ruined by discussing controversial moments 80% of the time.

We even had 2 minutes of discussing whether Eden should have picked it up or fallen on it.

The players who take to the filed are incredibly skillful, strong and entertaining and we seem to be doing everything possible to reign that in.

The fact that JohnM seems to be the only person in the universe who agrees with the Fonua sin bin tells you all you need to know.

I'm done

A few died-in- the wool we-wuz-robbed myopic Cas followers on a little forum hardly constitutes the Universe....unless of course you have incontrovertible proof  that the entire Sky audience agrees with you.