Sat 13th May: SL: St Helens v Salford Red Devils KO 13:00 (C4)

[bobbruce]

9 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I remember many years ago, the late Terry Newton shoved Sean Long - who was obstructing him from getting to the player in possession - Long got shoved into another Saints player and Newton got banned for a number of games, now if Atkin collided with another Salford player due to Sironens action should he also receive a ban?

Unless it’s a different incident he hit him late with an elbow to the face and broke longs cheek bone and eye socket. He also got 3 games for an attack on Gilmore in the same match. 

[Harry Stottle]

25 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Unless it’s a different incident he hit him late with an elbow to the face and broke longs cheek bone and eye socket. He also got 3 games for an attack on Gilmore in the same match. 

As I remember it Bob he clearly shoved Long in the back who then collided with a player from his own team.

[bobbruce]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

As I remember it Bob he clearly shoved Long in the back who then collided with a player from his own team.

You think he got 7 games for pushing someone. 

[Gavin Harrison]

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

So the disciplinary panel have reviewed all the incidents and decided Sneyd DID deliberately run in front of Lomax to block him, and as for the Sironen / Atkin incident, it wasn't even referred to as being an issue worthy of further review by the panel (though Sironen did get a 1 match ban for the late tackle on Croft in the 1st half). So now who's hilarious  !

So, just to recap. TWO Saints players being banned.

Neither of which received any on field sanction beyond a penalty. One should have seen a yellow card. One should have seen a red card.

You are hilarious. Almost as hilarious as Chris Kendall.

 

[johnh1]

2 minutes ago, Gavin Harrison said:

So, just to recap. TWO Saints players being banned.

Neither of which received any on field sanction beyond a penalty. One should have seen a yellow card. One should have seen a red card.

You are hilarious. Almost as hilarious as Chris Kendall.

 

With the added benefit of having a video ref who could and should have had a word in the ear of the ref. But this is Saints we are talking about Gavin.

[Josef K]

My Saints mates were up in arms, bringing other clubs and their players into the argument with “WARRA ABOWT”.

Wellens needs to sort out our discipline it is shocking. No complaints from me though, it’s not worth getting upset about it as the incident has been looked at and the MRP were not impressed with what happened. I don’t think we’ll miss Lees that much, and hopefully we’ll be having Paasi & Mata’utia back in a few weeks. Although Mata’utia is another one with poor discipline. 
It’s all Phil Clarke’s fault anyway Coz E Hatez Saints. 

[Gavin Harrison]

17 hours ago, johnh1 said:

With the added benefit of having a video ref who could and should have had a word in the ear of the ref. But this is Saints we are talking about Gavin.

This. How the VR saw nothing in the Lees/Wright incident is a real head scratcher. 

[Human Punk]

I'm not happy about these bans for so-called late hits that occur a few milliseconds after the ball has been released. The whole point about taking the ball into the line is to commit a defender into making a tackle and releasing the ball just in time in order to create an attacking opportunity. Fair enough if the subsequent tackle is high, or from behind, or very late, but these rulings are taking away what has long been an important part of the game.

It's not just this one with Sironen, there have been plenty more this season for all teams, some leading to sinbins, others bans from the judiciary. It'll end up making the game worse as a spectacle.

[Gavin Harrison]

Has there been any explanation of that whistle blow from Kendall?

Salford had a 20m restart. Kendall gave a 6 again on zero tackle. In same set he penalised Saints for offside on 3rd tackle.

Sainst are on their own line & as it goes right, Kendall blows his whistle after Watkins is tackled without the ball. 

Kendall doesn't give a signal. No penalty is awarded.

Salford knock on & he then calls a scrum, without blowing his whistle to signal.it.

Kendall can then be heard saying to Vuniyayawa 'King watch the lead runs'.

So it appears Kendall decided he was going to penalise Vuniyayawa after it looked like Salford were in a great attacking position, blew his whistle, ignored the off the ball tackle on Watkins & decided to go with the knock on.

There was no lead run obstruction from Vuniyayawa. There was a tackle on Watkins when not in possession.

Appears another example of Kendall getting it badly wrong.

Shpuld have been a penalty Salford. & would have been the 3rd Saints offence in one possesion & it should have been a yellow card?

Am I missing something?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hullste]

On 15/05/2023 at 09:45, Gavin Harrison said:

That is utterly hilarious. It really is.

 

Sneyd dodn't hit Lomax off the ball. Lomax ran into the back of Sneyd & went down spectacularly.

Just like Batchelor did. Burgess didn't pull his legs away. Batchelor weighs 17st.

Sironen deliberately smashed in to the back of Atkin. He was never going to get anywhere near the ball & was not blocked from doing so.

Lees was runnng at speed & way after losing the ball goes for Wright, & catches him clean in the face with a forearm.

Would have been a HIA from that impact alone.

Wright doesn't have the ball. He's not braced for any contact. Lees impact takes him completely off balance & as a result he suffers a serious injury.

 

 

At least try to have a little objectivity and take off your Salford tinted glasses, Sneyd knew what he was doing and got a way with the raised elbow as he didn't change his line, fair enough. Burgess grabs and pulls at the ankle of the marker, yes Bachelor falls over easily but it is stupid play from Burgess when he has the ball. As for Atkin, he clearly changes his line in an attempt to block Sironen, Sironen knocks him over but there is no evidence that the contact was direct to the back of the head.

As for Lee's, a precedent has already been set after Knowles ban in terms of increasing the ban based on the injury sustained however in Knowles case the injury sustained was as a direct result of the poor tackle technique. With Lee's it was an openhanded knock to the head, the player wasn't dazed or didn't suffer concussion he lost balance and turned his ankle which unfortunately has turned out to be a serious injury. I think it would be an extremely dangerous precedent if the indirect injury sustained leads to Lee's getting an increased ban although this appears likely.

Sironen has rightly been banned for unnecessary late hits in the recent past however is unlucky this time. Croft takes the ball right to the line and commits the defender to the tackle before passing the ball, the defender is already committed and tackles a millisecond after the ball is released. I'm not sure what you are meant to do in that situation. If you don't commit the attacker throws the dummy and runs through to score unopposed. It wasn't late and I think there needs to be some consideration given as to the point where a defender is committed when adjudicating on these incidents.

[Human Punk]

Further to the Sironen 'late hit' (and other similar) - I believe that these interpretations are potentially dangerous. When the ball is released a split second before the tackle is made it's much safer if the tackle is completed in a regular manner. If the tacklers are forced to change their position to 'pull out' at the last moment they are more likely to end up in an abnormal tackling position which can only increase the likelihood of injury to themselves or indeed the attacker.

[Gavin Harrison]

26 minutes ago, hullste said:

At least try to have a little objectivity and take off your Salford tinted glasses, Sneyd knew what he was doing and got a way with the raised elbow as he didn't change his line, fair enough. Burgess grabs and pulls at the ankle of the marker, yes Bachelor falls over easily but it is stupid play from Burgess when he has the ball. As for Atkin, he clearly changes his line in an attempt to block Sironen, Sironen knocks him over but there is no evidence that the contact was direct to the back of the head.

As for Lee's, a precedent has already been set after Knowles ban in terms of increasing the ban based on the injury sustained however in Knowles case the injury sustained was as a direct result of the poor tackle technique. With Lee's it was an openhanded knock to the head, the player wasn't dazed or didn't suffer concussion he lost balance and turned his ankle which unfortunately has turned out to be a serious injury. I think it would be an extremely dangerous precedent if the indirect injury sustained leads to Lee's getting an increased ban although this appears likely.

Sironen has rightly been banned for unnecessary late hits in the recent past however is unlucky this time. Croft takes the ball right to the line and commits the defender to the tackle before passing the ball, the defender is already committed and tackles a millisecond after the ball is released. I'm not sure what you are meant to do in that situation. If you don't commit the attacker throws the dummy and runs through to score unopposed. It wasn't late and I think there needs to be some consideration given as to the point where a defender is committed when adjudicating on these incidents.

No Salford tints at all. No Salford player charge, fined or banned.

The green card for Atkin was a laughable call.

You need to watch the Lees incident again.

Salford took Wright off for a HIA as he was hit directly in the face with a forearm.

It should have been a red card. 

Wright doesn't have the ball & the speed Lees was running at, having changed direction ro go at Wright, is what knocks him off balance

He was dazed by it but spent time on the deck because of his ankle.

Any injury suffered as a direct result of foul 0lay should be taken in to consideration.

[Saint Toppy]

2 hours ago, Gavin Harrison said:

Has there been any explanation of that whistle blow from Kendall?

Salford had a 20m restart. Kendall gave a 6 again on zero tackle. In same set he penalised Saints for offside on 3rd tackle.

Sainst are on their own line & as it goes right, Kendall blows his whistle after Watkins is tackled without the ball. 

Kendall doesn't give a signal. No penalty is awarded.

Salford knock on & he then calls a scrum, without blowing his whistle to signal.it.

Kendall can then be heard saying to Vuniyayawa 'King watch the lead runs'.

So it appears Kendall decided he was going to penalise Vuniyayawa after it looked like Salford were in a great attacking position, blew his whistle, ignored the off the ball tackle on Watkins & decided to go with the knock on.

There was no lead run obstruction from Vuniyayawa. There was a tackle on Watkins when not in possession.

Appears another example of Kendall getting it badly wrong.

Shpuld have been a penalty Salford. & would have been the 3rd Saints offence in one possesion & it should have been a yellow card?

Am I missing something?

Nope not missing anything, you've definately still got your Salford Tinted specs on that seemingly only allow you to see offences by the opposition or mistakes by the officials, and they block out seeing any errors or foul play by any Salford Players 

[johnh1]

Lees suspended for 2 matches. How will Saints cope? Meanwhile still waiting on the result of Wright's ankle injury. Could well be season ending. But Saints fans think they are hard done by. Unbelievable.

[Gavin Harrison]

10 hours ago, johnh1 said:

Lees suspended for 2 matches. How will Saints cope? Meanwhile still waiting on the result of Wright's ankle injury. Could well be season ending. But Saints fans think they are hard done by. Unbelievable.

What was the point of referring the incident to the tribunal?

Grade D is 2-3 games. Sanction could have been imposed by MRP.

How on earth is what Lees did comparable to Tetevano?

Both incidents 2 game bans. How?

Turns out it was Liam Moore that sent Tetevano off. Liam Moore was VR & saw nothing wrong with what Lees did.

It's beyond a joke. 

 

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, Gavin Harrison said:

What was the point of referring the incident to the tribunal?

Grade D is 2-3 games. Sanction could have been imposed by MRP.

How on earth is what Lees did comparable to Tetevano?

Both incidents 2 game bans. How?

Turns out it was Liam Moore that sent Tetevano off. Liam Moore was VR & saw nothing wrong with what Lees did.

It's beyond a joke. 

 

You really should do your research before posting so you don't look quite as dumb when you do.

Saints successfully challenged the tribunal referral hence it defaulted back to the original grading only of Grade D which is a 2 - 3 match ban.

Lees incident was classed as a 'reckless grab' that made contact with the head which ordinarily would just be classed as a Grade A offence (possibly a B) and likely wouldn't incur a ban. It was upgraded to a Grade D and the 2 games imposed to account for the injury to Wright. Match officials can only penalise on the incident they see at the time (which was a grab that made contact with the head) they can't upgrade their on field sanction to say a red card because at that time they had no idea of the extent of Wright's injury and nor did they have the luxury of watching endless replays from every angle to determine whether the grab by Lees caused or contributed to the injury.

You can whinge & whine all you like but the fact is the officials got their decision right on the day.

Tetevano's was a direct contact to the head with force and TBH he was probably lucky to only get 2 games for that. And like the Lees incident the officials got their call exactly right on the day.

[Gavin Harrison]

22 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Nope not missing anything, you've definately still got your Salford Tinted specs on that seemingly only allow you to see offences by the opposition or mistakes by the officials, and they block out seeing any errors or foul play by any Salford Players 

So you actually hqve no answer for that sequ3nce of events...

[Gavin Harrison]

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

You really should do your research before posting so you don't look quite as dumb when you do.

Saints successfully challenged the tribunal referral hence it defaulted back to the original grading only of Grade D which is a 2 - 3 match ban.

Lees incident was classed as a 'reckless grab' that made contact with the head which ordinarily would just be classed as a Grade A offence (possibly a B) and likely wouldn't incur a ban. It was upgraded to a Grade D and the 2 games imposed to account for the injury to Wright. Match officials can only penalise on the incident they see at the time (which was a grab that made contact with the head) they can't upgrade their on field sanction to say a red card because at that time they had no idea of the extent of Wright's injury and nor did they have the luxury of watching endless replays from every angle to determine whether the grab by Lees caused or contributed to the injury.

You can whinge & whine all you like but the fact is the officials got their decision right on the day.

Tetevano's was a direct contact to the head with force and TBH he was probably lucky to only get 2 games for that. And like the Lees incident the officials got their call exactly right on the day.

My word. Some Saints fans suffer from a real lack of manners.

I posed the question why was ths matter referred to the tribunal. 

Clearly the grounds for referral were insufficient in some manner, hence the question.

Saints did not get the grading reduced. The sqnction was still handed down by the tribunal.

Lees incident was graded a D.

He struck Wright flush in the face with his forearm & the follow through forced his upper body backwards.

The injury sustained by Wright was not considered.

The on field sanction was clearly totally wrong. A grade D tackle is not simply penalty.

As pointed out Liam Moore sent Tetevano off but failed to do anything, with clear footage available, on the Lees incident.

The game was stopped wufficiently l9ng for Liam Moore to watch several replays. Just as the game was stopped & replays watched in the Tetevano incident.

The MRP has failed by referring such a case to tribunal & the match officials failed by not issuing a red card to Matty Lees.

As a result Daints have an extra player & interchanges for 60 minutes.

And it was of course Sironen who scored the first Saints try in the 2nd half...

 

[LeeF]

41 minutes ago, Gavin Harrison said:

My word. Some Saints fans suffer from a real lack of manners.

I posed the question why was ths matter referred to the tribunal. 

Clearly the grounds for referral were insufficient in some manner, hence the question.

Saints did not get the grading reduced. The sqnction was still handed down by the tribunal.

Lees incident was graded a D.

He struck Wright flush in the face with his forearm & the follow through forced his upper body backwards.

The injury sustained by Wright was not considered.

The on field sanction was clearly totally wrong. A grade D tackle is not simply penalty.

As pointed out Liam Moore sent Tetevano off but failed to do anything, with clear footage available, on the Lees incident.

The game was stopped wufficiently l9ng for Liam Moore to watch several replays. Just as the game was stopped & replays watched in the Tetevano incident.

The MRP has failed by referring such a case to tribunal & the match officials failed by not issuing a red card to Matty Lees.

As a result Daints have an extra player & interchanges for 60 minutes.

And it was of course Sironen who scored the first Saints try in the 2nd half...

 

Strange conclusion. The MRP correctly referred the charge, in line with the Operational Rules, to the Disciplinary Panel.

[bobbruce]

18 hours ago, johnh1 said:

Lees suspended for 2 matches. How will Saints cope? Meanwhile still waiting on the result of Wright's ankle injury. Could well be season ending. But Saints fans think they are hard done by. Unbelievable.

Which Saints fans think they are hard done to. 

[johnh1]

30 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Which Saints fans think they are hard done to. 

Read through this thread and have a look at the red vee forum. Plenty think that Saints were the ones who were hard done to.

[bobbruce]

21 minutes ago, johnh1 said:

Read through this thread and have a look at the red vee forum. Plenty think that Saints were the ones who were hard done to.

I’ve no interest in going on redvee but I haven’t seen anyone on here suggesting Saints were hard done to. Just point out that not every decision went Saints way. 

[johnh1]

Don't think anyone has suggested that they did.

[redsi42]

I wonder which club or clubs have had the most action taken (bans or fines) for misconduct post game. When no action was taken during the game.  

[Saint Toppy]

16 hours ago, Gavin Harrison said:

My word. Some Saints fans suffer from a real lack of manners.

I posed the question why was ths matter referred to the tribunal. 

Clearly the grounds for referral were insufficient in some manner, hence the question.

Saints did not get the grading reduced. The sqnction was still handed down by the tribunal.

Lees incident was graded a D.

He struck Wright flush in the face with his forearm & the follow through forced his upper body backwards.

The injury sustained by Wright was not considered.

The on field sanction was clearly totally wrong. A grade D tackle is not simply penalty.

As pointed out Liam Moore sent Tetevano off but failed to do anything, with clear footage available, on the Lees incident.

The game was stopped wufficiently l9ng for Liam Moore to watch several replays. Just as the game was stopped & replays watched in the Tetevano incident.

The MRP has failed by referring such a case to tribunal & the match officials failed by not issuing a red card to Matty Lees.

As a result Daints have an extra player & interchanges for 60 minutes.

And it was of course Sironen who scored the first Saints try in the 2nd half...

 

I think those tainted specs must be stuck on - either that or you've been struck on the head several times by Matty Lees. Time to pick up all your dummies and put them back in, oh and maybe book that trip to Specsavers