Mike Cooper : Season ending injury. (Merged Threads)

[ELBOWSEYE]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I thought Mcguire was charged at F which is 6 plus. He got 7.

Knowles has been given 5 matches though at grade D. 

I understand you are probably right, but the RFL rightly hammers/clamps down on a player over an inappropriate insult yet one player punches a prone players unable to defend himself and another player with a track record puts another players career at risk with an illegal tackle. Out of all those instances only one player was physically injured yet the game does not show willing to stamp out the tackle or the punch. 

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm not saying it can't be refined. But players not doing actions worthy of red cards shouldn't routinely be getting banned for future matches without good reason.

That could have been addressed under the old system. In fact it was - the season before had the same system and wasn't as harsh. 

This system has just made the same offence be punished less severely. 

A Grade D offence is a Grade D offence whether the ref saw it that way on the pitch or not. 

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm not saying it can't be refined. But players not doing actions worthy of red cards shouldn't routinely be getting banned for future matches without good reason.

The actions would be worthy of red cards if RL had a football-style approach. But, as a red card in rugby is not the same as one in football, we don't.

The balance is therefore found in a banning process like this.

If we stopped bans then we'd need to have a lot more in-play yellow and red cards.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I understand you are probably right, but the RFL rightly hammers/clamps down on a player over an inappropriate insult yet one player punches a prone players unable to defend himself and another player with a track record puts another players career at risk with an illegal tackle. Out of all those instances only one player was physically injured yet the game does not show willing to stamp out the tackle or the punch. 

5 matches is a substantial ban. I don't see the argument that Dudson has not been heavily (rightly) punished. 

Similar with Knowles, they have shown they are taking it serious by banning him higher than the grading. 

Mcguire's falls into the category of more serious incidents, like gambling and drug offences. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The actions would be worthy of red cards if RL had a football-style approach. But, as a red card in rugby is not the same as one in football, we don't.

The balance is therefore found in a banning process like this.

If we stopped bans then we'd need to have a lot more in-play yellow and red cards.

Indeed. We have just decided to condone more foul play. Nothing more, nothing less. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

Redvee, have fans thinking its all about stopping saints from winning another title, nothing to do with their own players, 

Warrington have had 4 players banned this season 

Mcguire 7

Dudson 5

Philbin 2

Kasiano 1.

So club being treated better than they deserve. 

[Chris22]

Always sad to see player suffer serious injuries but this one sounds particularly nasty according to Matty Peet's account. At Cooper's age, there is always the thought of whether he will be able to return from it. Let's hope that he because it would be a devastating way to end.

[Tommygilf]

19 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The actions would be worthy of red cards if RL had a football-style approach. But, as a red card in rugby is not the same as one in football, we don't.

The balance is therefore found in a banning process like this.

If we stopped bans then we'd need to have a lot more in-play yellow and red cards.

We do have a lot of in play yellow and red cards. I actually think it works better because of this, because our Yellow cards are a punishment in a way that football yellow cards are just a caution.

If ban worthy actions are routinely being missed by the referees then there is a problem. The system has been rebalanced such that they aren't.

A ref can't punish you on the field taking into account previous behaviour before that match. That is what the MRP are there to do when appropriate. 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

We do have a lot of in play yellow and red cards.

0.7 sin bins per game is the NRL start. Even if ours is a little bit higher that is far from a 'a lot'.

[Tommygilf]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That could have been addressed under the old system. In fact it was - the season before had the same system and wasn't as harsh. 

This system has just made the same offence be punished less severely. 

A Grade D offence is a Grade D offence whether the ref saw it that way on the pitch or not. 

That's a matter of refinement from now, not revolution.

The current system means that a ban has to be earned. Your punishment likewise should fit your crime. As in society, that means some people get off lightly, but others are rightly not punished too harshly. 

I think it's rare that an incident that is not a red card offence should by itself result in a match ban. Referees aren't that stupid. When non-Red card offences do result in bans, that should be because the MRP can look more broadly, rather than the single match.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, gingerjon said:

0.7 sin bins per game is the NRL start. Even if ours is a little bit higher that is far from a 'a lot'.

So? Its relative. 

There are yellow and red cards used when appropriate this season. I've not seen a blatant occasion where I've thought one was not given where it 100% should have been. Likewise I've seen plenty of incidents that have been rightly judged as card worthy, dealt with as such, and generally only gone to a ban if a red wasn't sufficient or there were extra factors.

Are you saying the lack of cards, in your opinion, indicates the game is riddled with disorder? Because that isn't what I see each week.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

So? Its relative. 

There are yellow and red cards used when appropriate this season. I've not seen a blatant occasion where I've thought one was not given where it 100% should have been. Likewise I've seen plenty of incidents that have been rightly judged as card worthy, dealt with as such, and generally only gone to a ban if a red wasn't sufficient or there were extra factors.

Are you saying the lack of cards, in your opinion, indicates the game is riddled with disorder? Because that isn't what I see each week.

Did I say disorder? No, I did not.

I said, and I think I was quite clear this time, that our way of ensuring that we don't have an overloading of actions that cause injury or are deliberate foul play, is not the same as, say, soccer. We punish far less in real time and more subsequently.

If we decided that bans and the like should be based on in-game punishments then we would have to change how often those in-game punishments were done and to what level.

[Lowdesert]

46 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Jesus. 

What is it with Bower and Shaw being so upset with serious foul play being punished?

Bower and Shaw needs to be on the end of a HD, then he would think otherwise.

It’s not part of the game, it’s not reactionary spur of the moment decisions.  Players performing the tackles know exactly what they are doing.  

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Did I say disorder? No, I did not.

I said, and I think I was quite clear this time, that our way of ensuring that we don't have an overloading of actions that cause injury or are deliberate foul play, is not the same as, say, soccer. We punish far less in real time and more subsequently.

If we decided that bans and the like should be based on in-game punishments then we would have to change how often those in-game punishments were done and to what level.

That seemed to be your implication by your use of the stat you chose.

I think we punish foul play directly far more, no soccer player sits out 10 minutes. Between 6 agains, penalties and cards we see plenty of punishment, when appropriate, for foul play in an average Super League match.

The MRP are doing what they should be:

1. Picking out incidents that were missed or not dealt with sufficiently.

2. Providing a broad picture view to punishments as needed, such as from accumulation of offences, leading to fines and/or subsequent bans.

3. Ensuring that bans are applied where a red card would be insufficient.

Generally, the referees are getting most calls right on the pitch as they see them; and subsequently players are not being banned just for being cited to the MRP, or being caught in a cycle of bans for past bans because of said MRP citings resulting in bans. The MRP is now reflecting this empowering of refereeing decisions.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

no soccer player sits out 10 minutes

Oh, my sweet summer child, come with me to the Mid Sussex League (and, indeed, a bunch of English lower leagues that started by trialling sin bins a few years ago and seem to have kept them).

I see your point but the fact is the default is (broadly): "That's wrong, here's a quick fix, we'll look later if we need to". So basing bans on in-game punishments is not how it works and if it were then the in-game punishing would have to change.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Oh, my sweet summer child, come with me to the Mid Sussex League (and, indeed, a bunch of English lower leagues that started by trialling sin bins a few years ago and seem to have kept them).

I see your point but the fact is the default is (broadly): "That's wrong, here's a quick fix, we'll look later if we need to". So basing bans on in-game punishments is not how it works and if it were then the in-game punishing would have to change.

That's because the hooligans have made it onto the pitch in mid sussex, don't you know?

I don't think that is the default anymore. It certainly was last season, but not now. Bans now are having to be earned at least, and are "usually" falling in line with on field punishments where appropriate, or taking into account the broader picture as necessary.

We don't need every player who gets a yellow card having a 1-3 match ban guaranteed afterwards. If their actions are that bad then they should be sent off for the whole game. We certainly do not need the same to be applied as a matter of course for players merely penalised. 

If the MRP is covering those 3 essential bases, in line with the majority of generally good refereeing decisions, it's doing just fine. 

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Redvee, have fans thinking its all about stopping saints from winning another title, nothing to do with their own players, 

Some posters have; others are (rightly) criticising Knowles’ actions - including over a sustained period of time - and Saints’ discipline this season. 

[Chris22]

10 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Some posters have; others are (rightly) criticising Knowles’ actions - including over a sustained period of time - and Saints’ discipline this season. 

People quite often post about what is apparently said on Redvee on here, yet when you actually look it often doesn't say that at all!

[Tippytoe]

We'll find out if it's a player issue or more worrying a club issue if the club appeals they are basically saying they are ok with the tackle.

[Tippytoe]

We'll find out if it's a player issue or more worrying a club issue if the club appeals they are basically saying they are ok with the tackle.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

That's a matter of refinement from now, not revolution.

The current system means that a ban has to be earned. Your punishment likewise should fit your crime. As in society, that means some people get off lightly, but others are rightly not punished too harshly. 

I think it's rare that an incident that is not a red card offence should by itself result in a match ban. Referees aren't that stupid. When non-Red card offences do result in bans, that should be because the MRP can look more broadly, rather than the single match.

I don't think players were getting banned for non red-card offences. I think we got in a bit of a mess because we bottled sending them off. So refs bottled it, but the disciplinary still did their job. 

Now we just leave them on the field, and don't ban them afterwards either. 

There is a reason these late hits in particular are becoming part and parcel of the game imho. 

[Dave T]

An issue I have with Knowles' punisent is that the press release doesn't acknowledge why he has been sentenced outside of the punishment range. Surely taht should be part of the communication. We shouldn't have to wait to read the small print tucked away in the hearing notes on the disciplinary page on the RFL site. 

We have Philbin getting 2matches for a D, Knowles getting 5 for a D, and Dudson getting 5 for an E. That really should be explained to fans/media. Obviously we can work it out in terms of past record, but our comms should be far better. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Dave T

[Ragingbull]

Morgan Knowles judiciary record clearly shows he has a history of injuring players and putting them on the sideline.  This time hes potentially  ended someones carreer yet some continue to defend him.

 

[Kenilworth Tiger]

I missed the game - is there any footage of the Knowles incident?

[Dunbar]

15 minutes ago, Kenilworth Tiger said:

I missed the game - is there any footage of the Knowles incident?

Here is some analysis of the incident from NRL physio account on Twitter.