Morgan Smithies at the RFL Disciplinary

[Dallas Mead]

11 hours ago, JohnM said:

The ref made his on field deconstruction based on what he saw from his position. The post-match review took a different view as they were able to spend time on the issue. Judgement was made and punishment  issued. Thus the system works. 

As I understand it, refs are subject to review and "re-education". No doubt we'll soon know if he is given a few games off.

Made his on field “deconstruction” twice…..and got it wrong….twice.  That’s bad enough, but the VR watched the replay and also got it wrong….twice.  Unacceptable.

[jacksy]

15 hours ago, Loiner said:

Imagine what this forum would be like if it was James Bentley.

Or Connor.

[meast]

12 hours ago, redjonn said:

Both players should have been sin binned under current applied policies. Under earlier seasons polices each may have been sent off. I would assume Watson would have been one of the coaches wanting the change to early season policy ...so no sympathy from me.

We are under current polices and if ref saw the head shots then sin binning.

Not convinced Huddersfield would have got a try... then again it may have helped them get a try.... this is just wishful thinking they would have and gone on to win.

They lost because of poor goal/penalty kicks plus switching off in defence at key moment... they got away at least twice earlier but still hadn't learned.

Anyway it was a good final occasion and yes Huddersfield can argue they were better team on the day. Nevertheless I  was pleased it was the wigan coach's team that won... what a great bloke.

I don't think anyone is arguing that not sending Smithies off affected the outcome of the game at all, certainly not Ian Watson or anyone from Huddersfield that I've come across.

[Pie tries]

13 hours ago, Chris22 said:

If the like of Chris Hill and Chris McQueen weren't tweeting the likes of this earlier in the season, then maybe the policy wouldn't have changed, Smithies would have got sin binned or sent off and Huddersfield would have won the Challenge Cup. Life comes at you fast.

Absolutely- poor post from a pro player (who need protecting). RFL at fault too as response was OTT and not measured…

[Oxford]

16 hours ago, meast said:

I don't think anyone is arguing that not sending Smithies off affected the outcome of the game at all, certainly not Ian Watson or anyone from Huddersfield that I've come across.

Speaking as an SRD fan who didn't mind who won so long as it wasn't Watto the French/Field factor will win games for Wigan all season long when they probably weren't the best team on the day. Going down to twelve makes no difference as often as it does which presumably means that's a fifty fifty call, at best!

Edited June 1, 2022 by Oxford

[Oxford]

15 hours ago, Pie tries said:

Absolutely- poor post from a pro player (who need protecting). RFL at fault too as response was OTT and not measured…

You really need not to listen or read what people say when they're not at their best.

RFL/refs are damned if they do, damned if they don't and bashed for everything in between.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Oxford

[Ant]

Lot to unpack in this 

For both Yates and Smithies, the first offence wasn't really a card offence, no one even saw the Yates one

 

The hit on Leutele was a card every day of the week, even under the "more lax" rules of this season. 

Did it cost us the cup? No. Nor did missed goal kicks. IMO losing Hill after 20 mins cost us, lost a key middle unit with tons of big game experience, and he'd be coming on with 20 to go to add firepower back into a tiring team. Fine margins in a big game and losing him tipped it against us.

[redjonn]

8 hours ago, meast said:

I don't think anyone is arguing that not sending Smithies off affected the outcome of the game at all, certainly not Ian Watson or anyone from Huddersfield that I've come across.

nope maybe not... but Watson certainly has mentioned the fact he thought Smithies should have been off the pitch. Whether he has said specifically it cost the game I don't know, but in mentioning it he implies it was a major factor in the loss.

[Dunbar]

So, both Smithies and Yates were charged twice each by the disciplinary although Yates didn't incur any sanction for his late hit on the passer because it wad a grade A.

This is a genuine question because I don't have time to go back and look at the recording of the game, what were the on field decisions for the 4 incidents that brought charges? I know there were no cards but how many penalties were given.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Dunbar

[Davo5]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

So, both Smithies and Yates were charged twice each by the disciplinary although Yates didn't incur any sanction for his late hit on the passer because it wad a grade A.

This is a genuine question because I don't have time to go back and look at the recording of the game, what were the on field decisions for the 4 incidents that brought charges? I know there were no cards but how many penalties were given.

Wasn’t Smithies penalised twice & I’m pretty sure Yates got away with his high shot on Farrell.

[wiganermike]

3 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Wasn’t Smithies penalised twice & I’m pretty sure Yates got away with his high shot on Farrell.

Yes, that's correct.

[meast]

16 hours ago, redjonn said:

nope maybe not... but Watson certainly has mentioned the fact he thought Smithies should have been off the pitch. Whether he has said specifically it cost the game I don't know, but in mentioning it he implies it was a major factor in the loss.

I don't think he did, he just said he expected him to get a card, I've seen or heard no reference to anyone from Huddersfield suggesting that Smithies not being carded cost us the cup.

[Dunbar]

14 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Wasn’t Smithies penalised twice & I’m pretty sure Yates got away with his high shot on Farrell.

 

10 hours ago, wiganermike said:

Yes, that's correct.

So if there were two charges brought against each player but Wigan didn't even get a penalty for one of the incidents then surely Wigan are the team that has the most to complain about?

I have some sympathy for the Huddersfield argument as both the incidents were high contact and forceful. But that sympathy starts to evaporate quickly when I see the tweets from some of the Giants players from earlier in the year saying the game is being ruined by ref's penalising high contact with cards.

[Harry Stottle]

11 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

 

So if there were two charges brought against each player but Wigan didn't even get a penalty for one of the incidents then surely Wigan are the team that has the most to complain about?

I have some sympathy for the Huddersfield argument as both the incidents were high contact and forceful. But that sympathy starts to evaporate quickly when I see the tweets from some of the Giants players from earlier in the year saying the game is being ruined by ref's penalising high contact with cards.

Weren't the Giants players commenting on all the innocuous penalties that were being given and not for purposely aimed attacks at the head, there is a subtle difference and I would have thought that was the remit from the RFL and not letting deliberate actions go unpunished as some are suggesting.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Weren't the Giants players commenting on all the innocuous penalties that were being given and not for purposely aimed attacks at the head, there is a subtle difference and I would have thought that was the remit from the RFL and not letting deliberate actions go unpunished as some are suggesting.

Don't know. One posted a picture of a tag rugby belt and another a comment that the sport was becoming a joke.

Certainly the former was a heavy handed statement that the game is going soft.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Dunbar

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Don't know. One posted a picture of a tag rugby belt and another a comment that the sport was becoming a joke.

Certainly the former was a heavy handed statement that the game is going soft.

And that is the way it was appearing it was heading both here and in Australia, the weight of criticism from the coaches, player's and fans got the administration to look again.

[David Dockhouse Host]

On 31/05/2022 at 09:56, Dallas Mead said:

Made his on field “deconstruction” twice…..and got it wrong….twice.  That’s bad enough, but the VR watched the replay and also got it wrong….twice.  Unacceptable.

Ref got it right following the guidance after the early season fallout.

Ref saw the incident and gave a penalty.

Wasn't sure it was worthy if yellow so didn't give one.

Similar to other incidents for Huddersfield.

Incident left to disciplinary who took action.

Acceptable as this is the system people and coaches wanted.

Few questions.

How on earth do they ref a game without upsetting someone with a decision when they make 100s per game? 

Why do we not have enough refs? 

Which system would people prefer if not the precious one or current one? 

What should happen to a ref or a player if after intense scutiny it's found they made an error?

[Dallas Mead]

1 hour ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Ref got it right following the guidance after the early season fallout.

Ref saw the incident and gave a penalty.

Wasn't sure it was worthy if yellow so didn't give one.

Similar to other incidents for Huddersfield.

Incident left to disciplinary who took action.

Acceptable as this is the system people and coaches wanted.

Few questions.

How on earth do they ref a game without upsetting someone with a decision when they make 100s per game? 

Why do we not have enough refs? 

Which system would people prefer if not the precious one or current one? 

What should happen to a ref or a player if after intense scutiny it's found they made an error?

VR should have intervened and advised….twice.

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, Dallas Mead said:

VR should have intervened and advised….twice.

The VR didn't intervene to give a penalty for the Luke Yates tackle that subsequently brought a 2 match ban.

[David Dockhouse Host]

24 minutes ago, Dallas Mead said:

VR should have intervened and advised….twice.

Were do we draw the line?

If the Ref missed it completely, and play carried on should we have VR stopping play?

What about offsides and knock ons or other infringements, does the VR stop the game for all of these? 

 

[Jughead]

32 minutes ago, Dallas Mead said:

VR should have intervened and advised….twice.

Are they even allowed to anymore? 

I remember they’d have a word in the referee’s ear, maybe 10-20 years ago and pull them back but I cannot remember the last time that happened in a televised game or a game I’ve been to.