Morgan Smithies at the RFL Disciplinary

[Old Frightful]

A total of four matches in bans, two for each head shot in the final, so why wasn’t he sent off?

Childs to have a rest this week?

[David Shepherd]

3 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

A total of four matches in bans, two for each head shot in the final, so why wasn’t he sent off?

Childs to have a rest this week?

Childs was the only person not wearing a Wigan shirt in the stadium that didn't see it. 

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

A total of four matches in bans, two for each head shot in the final, so why wasn’t he sent off?

Childs to have a rest this week?

You can ask that question every week when someone is referred to the disciplinary.

It is quite funny though how many on this board were saying it ruined the game when the RFL rightly clamped down on foul play with sending offs but now because a Wigan player isn't sent off in a final are now having a meltdown the other way. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[DavidM]

My own opinion then and now was that both were really cheap shots and he knew what he was doing and both warranted more than a penalty . I was very surprised he stayed on the pitch with the ref and video ref pretty lenient there

[Scubby]

4 minutes ago, DavidM said:

My own opinion then and now was that both were really cheap shots and he knew what he was doing and both warranted more than a penalty . I was very surprised he stayed on the pitch with the ref and video ref pretty lenient there

I think the second time was the time to act, that is quite unusual for a game and of course the ref had given the benefit of doubt in the first one. Ten minutes in the bin was a huge but correct call that had to be made.

[Scubby]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

You can ask that question every week when someone is referred to the disciplinary.

It is quite funny though how many on this board were saying it ruined the game when the RFL rightly clamped down on foul play with sending offs but now because a Wigan player isn't sent off in a final are now having a meltdown the other way. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

A second similar offence by the same player is quite unusual though and probably ups the ante on whether a ref needs to act. 

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Scubby said:

A second similar offence by the same player is quite unusual though and probably ups the ante on whether a ref needs to act. 

I'd have had no complaints with what you said previously about him being sin binned after the 2nd one. I think your analysis there was spot on and that would have been fair.

At the start of the season he'd have definitely gone, final or not, but we have definitely seen a relaxation since then. In the context of what we have seen lately what happened on Saturday is not as outrageous as some are making out. People can't pick and choose a clampdown depending on the teams involved. I was for the clampdown, as I know others on here were but there was plenty against it and this is the result.

[wiganermike]

Smithies has rightly picked up bans for the high shots and I and other Wigan fans at the game and since said he should have got a yellow and was lucky not to have done. However Luke Yates has also got a 2 match ban for a high reckless shot, where is the righteous indignation towards him? Why was it OK that he stayed on the pitch? I assume that was the hit on Farrell for which we didn't get a penalty. Fans of other teams tend not to like Wigan, I get that, but people need to see things both ways when they get called wrongly.

Smithies should have gone to the bin IMO but so should Yates as the bans are the same. The holding down on French when he picked up the loose ball at the end of the first half should probably have seen a card too as it was done to prevent a quick play the ball against a defence that wasn't set. Remember that if an incident is considered to warrant a card then the video ref is able to intervene. He didn't do so at any point in the game. I haven't complained (previously) about the refereeing as refs are human and will make mistakes. The officials got some things wrong but both teams had things go against them with ref errors directly affecting both teams, but fans will generally only see what goes against their own team (or the one they want to win).

The officials made errors (and that's all they were) but they affected both teams. There were no cards shown at all and people may not agree with that but there were a few occasions where a card could have been shown (to players on either team) and wasn't so at least the calls were consistent.

[Scubby]

11 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

Smithies has rightly picked up bans for the high shots and I and other Wigan fans at the game and since said he should have got a yellow and was lucky not to have done. However Luke Yates has also got a 2 match ban for a high reckless shot, where is the righteous indignation towards him? Why was it OK that he stayed on the pitch? I assume that was the hit on Farrell for which we didn't get a penalty. Fans of other teams tend not to like Wigan, I get that, but people need to see things both ways when they get called wrongly.

Smithies should have gone to the bin IMO but so should Yates as the bans are the same. The holding down on French when he picked up the loose ball at the end of the first half should probably have seen a card too as it was done to prevent a quick play the ball against a defence that wasn't set. Remember that if an incident is considered to warrant a card then the video ref is able to intervene. He didn't do so at any point in the game. I haven't complained (previously) about the refereeing as refs are human and will make mistakes. The officials got some things wrong but both teams had things go against them with ref errors directly affecting both teams, but fans will generally only see what goes against their own team (or the one they want to win).

The officials made errors (and that's all they were) but they affected both teams. There were no cards shown at all and people may not agree with that but there were a few occasions where a card could have been shown (to players on either team) and wasn't so at least the calls were consistent.

I take your point about Yates but you do accept it perhaps changes things when it is a second similar offence by the same player? That is quite unusual in a game. 

[Old Frightful]

28 minutes ago, Damien said:

People can't pick and choose a clampdown depending on the teams involved.

 

10 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

Fans of other teams tend not to like Wigan, I get that, but people need to see things both ways when they get called wrongly.

FFS, it's got f*** all to do with the team involved, Smithies belted someone high, remained on the field, and then did it again.

Yates did it once.

But of course, because it's Wigan, all WDL type posts suddenly appear suggesting it's righteous indignation against the Wigan club.

The same sort of stuff has rightly been said about James Bentley, does he play for Wigan?

[wiganermike]

1 minute ago, Scubby said:

I take your point about Yates but you do accept it perhaps changes things when it is a second similar offence by the same player? That is quite unusual in a game. 

Certainly a 2nd offence should mean more consideration is given but as I said the video ref has the ability to intervene if he feels a card is warranted. The fact that he didn't on any occasion suggests that he like James Child didn't consider it (or Smithies' first offence, or Yates high hit) worthy of a card. If they didn't consider the first worthy of a card then it may not have been a consideration when the second offence occurred. Those of us sat in the stands or watching at home may not agree but at least the officials' approach was consistent. If Yates had been binned and Smithies not then I could have more sympathy for the anger. For whatever reason the officials didn't see a need for any cards so we didn't see any. The rolling back of the early season clampdown may well have played a part in that as others have said.

[Damien]

16 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

 

FFS, it's got f*** all to do with the team involved, Smithies belted someone high, remained on the field, and then did it again.

Yates did it once.

But of course, because it's Wigan, all WDL type posts suddenly appear suggesting it's righteous indignation against the Wigan club.

The same sort of stuff has rightly been said about James Bentley, does he play for Wigan?

What a weird reply. It sounds like you just want your thread discussed in an echo chamber.

[Scubby]

Did anyone else hear the reference to no sin bins in a Challenge Cup final since 2003? Is that really true?

[wiganermike]

12 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

 

FFS, it's got f*** all to do with the team involved, Smithies belted someone high, remained on the field, and then did it again.

Yates did it once.

But of course, because it's Wigan, all WDL type posts suddenly appear suggesting it's righteous indignation against the Wigan club.

The same sort of stuff has rightly been said about James Bentley, does he play for Wigan?

The second bit in bold seems to contradict the assertion in the first bit in bold. Smithies should have been binned but so should Yates. (There is also an argument for a card for holding down French when he broke at the end of the first half). The officials saw the incidents differently and no cards were shown.

Smithies does have a tendency to make high tackles and it is something he needs to work on correcting as it is a real flaw in his game. He now has a month to reflect and work on it before he can play next. People can complain about Smithies' ill-discipline if they wish to but they should also acknowledge that he was not the only man lucky to be on the pitch. It isn't the complaints about the lack of a card but the one way witch hunt that I find annoying. The decisions not to brandish cards were at least consistent. As I put in another post I could understand and sympathise with it more had Yates been binned and Smithies not.

[The Future is League]

3 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

The second bit in bold seems to contradict the assertion in the first bit in bold. Smithies should have been binned but so should Yates. (There is also an argument for a card for holding down French when he broke at the end of the first half). The officials saw the incidents differently and no cards were shown.

Smithies does have a tendency to make high tackles and it is something he needs to work on correcting as it is a real flaw in his game. He now has a month to reflect and work on it before he can play next. People can complain about Smithies' ill-discipline if they wish to but they should also acknowledge that he was not the only man lucky to be on the pitch. It isn't the complaints about the lack of a card but the one way witch hunt that I find annoying. The decisions not to brandish cards were at least consistent. As I put in another post I could understand and sympathise with it more had Yates been binned and Smithies not.

What we have learned is that Smithies is a long way off being an international player at least until he stops the high tackles. I'm sure Matt Peet and Shaun Wane will be having a quiet word in his ear about this flaw in his game

[daz39]

Maybe he asked Mr Child before the game if he was ok to belt our players round the head and he told him he was, we don't know what was said.

Maybe he knew he wouldn't get sent off

Maybe Mr Child didn't want to break the run of no cards in a final for 20 years

 

Who knows, either way some lucky buggers will benefit from it in the coming weeks!!

[wiganermike]

Just now, The Future is League said:

What we have learned is that Smithies is a long way off being an international player at least until he stops the high tackles. I'm sure Matt Peet and Shaun Wane will be having a quiet word in his ear about this flaw in his game

He is starting to improve on that front but it is still a work in progress. He's a skilful player and does a lot of defensive work but it can be frustrating when he does something daft and heaps more pressure on the defence (he's not the only one doing it so it isn't all on him). He is still only young so has plenty of time to work on it and get it right. He had a good game in the final but it is the high shots that are the talking point.

[Oxford]

If Smithies wasn't binned and Yates wasn't either the ref was completely consistent in his interpretation of the rules  which is what you're always shouting for.

That is, if they were the same thing because we'd have to depend on your interpretation of the rules to assess the ref's interpretations.

Of course this would all depend on how we interpret the word Wigan as it applies to interpretation of the rules.

So I hope that's cleared everything up for everyone.

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by Oxford

[daz39]

26 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Did anyone else hear the reference to no sin bins in a Challenge Cup final since 2003? Is that really true?

Yes and who knows subconsciously maybe the ref's know this and don't want to be the one to break that run?

[Exiled Wiganer]

2 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

A total of four matches in bans, two for each head shot in the final, so why wasn’t he sent off?

Childs to have a rest this week?

Did you spot the Yates ban, by the way? It’s not like you to light a fuse and then stand back a safe distance.

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 hour ago, Old Frightful said:

 

FFS, it's got f*** all to do with the team involved, Smithies belted someone high, remained on the field, and then did it again.

Yates did it once.

But of course, because it's Wigan, all WDL type posts suddenly appear suggesting it's righteous indignation against the Wigan club.

The same sort of stuff has rightly been said about James Bentley, does he play for Wigan?

If you don’t know how the WDL works by now, you haven’t been paying close enough attention. I would also back up my coWDLer that I was surprised there wasn’t a card for the holding down when we had broken the line, and a penalty for the Farrell head shot. I would say half a dozen of one, and 5 1/2 of the other...

[Jughead]

At the start of the season, both are yellow card offences. Since the odd backtracking part way through the year, both are yellow offences that get overlooked at the time to be looked at by the disciplinary at a later date. It’s not Child’s fault, it’s the remit passed down to him. 

[idrewthehaggis]

Sadly our referees have again been seen wanting at the Big Occasion.

Both Smithies and Yates should have been sin binned. 

It would be the greatest message for RL to punish high tackles in an era where understanding and concern has risen over concussion and head injuries.

But no. 

Seems a familiar pattern.

2020 Challenge Cup final, 2021 Grand Final and now this year.

Usual suspects and usual benefactors. #### up or Rigged?

I hope IMG are looking at this.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by idrewthehaggis

[Damien]

Just now, idrewthehaggis said:

Sadly our referees have again been seen wanting at the Big Occasion.

Both Smithies and Yates should have been sin binned. 

It would be the greatest message for RL to punish high tackles in an era where understanding and concern has risen over concussion and head injuries.

But no. 

Seems a familiar pattern.

2020 Challenge Cup final, 2021 Grand Final and now this year.

Usual suspects and usual benefactors

I hope IMG are looking at this.

The RFL already made a conscious effort not to do that by backing down on the clampdown. Its odd to then expect them to instruct a referee to ref differently in a final. Blame the RFL who backed coaches and not their own referees over the clampdown, not the referee for following the RFL remit.

[idrewthehaggis]

Damien I am questioning the RFL about this, as well as wondering why our refs (as a difficult job they do) are consistently found out. 

As I say, I hope IMG are open to looking at improving Refereeing. No one could complaint with that.

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by idrewthehaggis