Fri 26th May: SL: Leeds Rhinos v St Helens KO 20:00 (Sky)

[Josef K]

On 27/05/2023 at 00:12, JonNgog said:

You do realise Wellens and Rush - especially the latter - have been very prominent at Saints for a number of years? 

Yes i do, id have preferred it if Wellens stayed assistant coach at the club. I thought Rush was the CEO now and nothing to do with the coaching side of things. 
Seeing Woolf sat at the side of Wello at the WCC when his contract was up at Saints was bizarre. I think becoming first team coach has affected Wellens and he has gone into panic mode or just froze at times this season. With Frayssinous being unwell in France wouldn’t have helped either. Will Matty Smith take over as assistant coach with Frayssinous being relieved of his duties ?. 

[Barley Mow]

14 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

A pat to the head should be deemed a punch , both should have been carded 

It's something I hate to see and have wondered before if refs could penalise it under the heading of either tackling/contact with a player who isn't in possession of the ball or contact with the head/high tackle.

As with it being a punch, both might be stretching interpretations though.

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

It's something I hate to see and have wondered before if refs could penalise it under the heading of either tackling/contact with a player who isn't in possession of the ball or contact with the head/high tackle.

As with it being a punch, both might be stretching interpretations though.

If I was a ref I'd be reading both teams and the coaches the riot act before the game " you do anything to make my job harder and I'll punish it you , simple as " Paul Rowley had Leigh players doing it all the time , i don't recall one single fan being happy with it , RL is a tough game , going out of your way to disrespect a fellow player isn't where we want to be , no need to use interpretation , just state that any deliberate contact other than within the tackle can be punished at the discretion of the referee 

Then it's just up to the player , behave or don't , but suffer the consequences, nobody in the game wants it 

[Saint Toppy]

On 27/05/2023 at 13:22, M j M said:

In general the grubby actions of the St Helens club on and off the field over the past eight months really are a stain on the league.

Care to tell us what happened in the 5 months when there were no games that saints played in ?

As for grubs, a quick check of the player charges just over the last month I think you'll find that Wakefield have more than any other team (7 charges), Leeds, Saints & Cas have 5 charges, then Catalans with 4.

Grubby Wakefield eh, they really have been a stain on the league over the last month  

[M j M]

15 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Care to tell us what happened in the 5 months when there were no games that saints played in ?

As for grubs, a quick check of the player charges just over the last month I think you'll find that Wakefield have more than any other team (7 charges), Leeds, Saints & Cas have 5 charges, then Catalans with 4.

Grubby Wakefield eh, they really have been a stain on the league over the last month  

What St Helens did in the week before the Grand Final last year is worse than any of their on field indiscretions. Of which there have been plenty.

Edited May 30, 2023 by M j M

[Saint Toppy]

2 hours ago, Tippytoe said:

Life through red v glasses. 

Or one actually based on facts from that game, not one based on total fiction like some of the comments on this thread.

The sledging took place from both sets of players throughout that game and the first one (that could clearly be seen on camera) was from a Leeds player. The 'congratulations' of an opposition player including verbals, back slapping, head patting etc. takes place regularly in most games through the year and across all teams, this game was nothing special. The only difference between this game and many others was McDonnell couldn't control himself, ran in, threw a punch direct to the head and has now been found guilty of a Grade D offence for that punch and picked up a 2 game ban.

[Saint Toppy]

On 27/05/2023 at 12:31, Gavin Harrison said:

Haven't seen any evidence of the alleged punch yet.

No surprise your tinted specs didn't see it.

Ah well at least you can console yourself that the official did on the night and that the Disciplinary panel did as well by finding McDonnell guilty of a Grade D punch to the head.

I think your beyond the help of even Specsavers 

[Chrispmartha]

I think Leeds may appeal this, if the MRP has seen evidence of a punch then they should be able to show it, there’s not been any video I’ve seen that shows a punch.

[Saint Toppy]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I think Leeds may appeal this, if the MRP has seen evidence of a punch then they should be able to show it, there’s not been any video I’ve seen that shows a punch.

Aww bless, poor 'innocent' McDonnell, I guess it was all Trump-esque fake news, he never ran it at all in that incident, it was the miraculous hand of god that caused Lomax's face to split open and cover himself in blood then - Not Guilty, case closed !!, or maybe Lomax even punched himself in the face in the melee just to get a Leeds player sent off  

Just accept the fact that McDonnell came running in and caused the whole incident, the Leeds player who Lomax patted on the head didn't even react other than to push his hand away. McDonnell was then seen by the officials to attack Lomax by punching him and he was sent off. The Disciplinary then reviewed the incident and found him guilty of punching and he got a ban. Just because the 1 camera angle that Sky televised didn't clearly show the punch doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Chrispmartha]

6 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Aww bless, poor 'innocent' McDonnell, I guess it was all Trump-esque fake news, he never ran it at all in that incident, it was the miraculous hand of god that caused Lomax's face to split open and cover himself in blood then - Not Guilty, case closed !!, or maybe Lomax even punched himself in the face in the melee just to get a Leeds player sent off  

Just accept the fact that McDonnell came running in and caused the whole incident, the Leeds player who Lomax patted on the head didn't even react other than to push his hand away. McDonnell was then seen by the officials to attack Lomax by punching him and he was sent off. The Disciplinary then reviewed the incident and found him guilty of punching and he got a ban. Just because the 1 camera angle that Sky televised didn't clearly show the punch doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Where did I say he was innocent?, I said there hasn't been any footage that showed a punch direct to the head.

Leeds are appealing it, as I say it should be easy for the MRP to show the evidence they have of the punch if they have reviewed it.

It isn't case closed, yet.

 

By the way the 'sledging' by both sides on Friday was out of control and it all led to this coming together, I'd like to see refs punish sledging more to be honest, there's no need for it.

 

[M j M]

Leeds are appealing it because McDonnell denied it from the start and still does, there is zero video evidence of anything of the sort happening and the only person who has said it did happen was the touch judge. 

The ban was in turn based solely on the touch judge's report.

Given McDonnell was in camera shot throughout it would be mind boggling if the ban wasn't overturned.

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

Aww bless, poor 'innocent' McDonnell, I guess it was all Trump-esque fake news, he never ran it at all in that incident, it was the miraculous hand of god that caused Lomax's face to split open and cover himself in blood then - Not Guilty, case closed !!, or maybe Lomax even punched himself in the face in the melee just to get a Leeds player sent off  

Just accept the fact that McDonnell came running in and caused the whole incident, the Leeds player who Lomax patted on the head didn't even react other than to push his hand away. McDonnell was then seen by the officials to attack Lomax by punching him and he was sent off. The Disciplinary then reviewed the incident and found him guilty of punching and he got a ban. Just because the 1 camera angle that Sky televised didn't clearly show the punch doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Lomax caused the incident.

You have already stated that "they do it to get a reaction and last night Lomax got exactly that" so you can't have it both ways, you can't say that Lomax tried to get a reaction and succeeded and then say someone else then started the incident.

[Chris22]

There was a lot of niggle from both sides. I was pleased that we didn't react to Leeds' efforts.

It is to Leeds' detriment that they did react when fire was returned.

Before the incident, Lomax was not bleeding. After it, he was bleeding from the mouth and his shirt was blood stained.

That didn't just happen. The touchjudge claims to see a punch and Lomax's injuries are consistent with that. On the other hand, the angles shown by Sky did not clearly show a punch.

If McConnell denies punching, it's a tricky situation for the panel.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

There was a lot of niggle from both sides. I was pleased that we didn't react to Leeds' efforts.

It is to Leeds' detriment that they did react when fire was returned.

Before the incident, Lomax was not bleeding. After it, he was bleeding from the mouth and his shirt was blood stained.

That didn't just happen. The touchjudge claims to see a punch and Lomax's injuries are consistent with that. On the other hand, the angles shown by Sky did not clearly show a punch.

If McConnell denies punching, it's a tricky situation for the panel.

I think it is straight forward.  If the touch judge says there was a punch then there was a punch.  He is an official and there is no reason to do anything than to take his version of events.

[Saint Toppy]

39 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Lomax caused the incident.

You have already stated that "they do it to get a reaction and last night Lomax got exactly that" so you can't have it both ways, you can't say that Lomax tried to get a reaction and succeeded and then say someone else then started the incident.

There was no incident until McDonnell ran in. Lomax patted a player on the head, he pushed Lomax hand away and that was the end of it between those 2 players. The only one who reacted was McDonnell. It was his poor discipline that got him sent off and let the team down, nobody elses.

[Dunbar]

29 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

There was no incident until McDonnell ran in. Lomax patted a player on the head, he pushed Lomax hand away and that was the end of it between those 2 players. The only one who reacted was McDonnell. It was his poor discipline that got him sent off and let the team down, nobody elses.

You are just contradicting your self now.

You said that players do it to get a reaction.  Lomax did it to get a reaction and he got the reaction.

Of course the Leeds player shouldn't have reacted in that way but Lomax caused it for the very reason you have suggested he did it in the first place.

By your logic, he did it to get a reaction and he got a reaction but that reaction wasn't caused by the action that was designed to get a reaction... I see.

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I think it is straight forward.  If the touch judge says there was a punch then there was a punch.  He is an official and there is no reason to do anything than to take his version of events.

Maybe if there weren't multiple cameras filming the incident yes 100% take the officials word for it but officials can be wrong/mistaken.

[Dunbar]

12 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Maybe if there weren't multiple cameras filming the incident yes 100% take the officials word for it but officials can be wrong/mistaken.

Do you think those camara angles can conclusively prove that no punch was thrown in the melee of all those players coming together?

[Davo5]

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Aww bless, poor 'innocent' McDonnell, I guess it was all Trump-esque fake news, he never ran it at all in that incident, it was the miraculous hand of god that caused Lomax's face to split open and cover himself in blood then - Not Guilty, case closed !!, or maybe Lomax even punched himself in the face in the melee just to get a Leeds player sent off  

Just accept the fact that McDonnell came running in and caused the whole incident, the Leeds player who Lomax patted on the head didn't even react other than to push his hand away. McDonnell was then seen by the officials to attack Lomax by punching him and he was sent off. The Disciplinary then reviewed the incident and found him guilty of punching and he got a ban. Just because the 1 camera angle that Sky televised didn't clearly show the punch doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The irony of a saints fan posting about accepting guilt & the disciplinary.

[John Drake]

Please stop slagging each other off.

Make your point without personal insults, or we'll have to start putting people on the TRL naughty step.

Thanks.

[FearTheVee]

3 hours ago, M j M said:

Given McDonnell was in camera shot throughout it would be mind boggling if the ban wasn't overturned.

Don't think this is true.  He is not in camera shot throughout, the camera moves away from Lomax.

The TJ said he saw him punch him, Lomax had a face consistent with a punch.  The only mind boggling thing would be how Lomax's face became punched without being punched.

As for the head rubbing - it has always wound me up.  But the only difference between the Lomax incident and the Leeds players who did the same on a number of occassions is that no Saints player overreacted to it with striking.

It is certainly not the type of behaviour you would normally see from Lomax, unlike a lot of players across the league including Saints, which probably serves to emphasise the poor spirit the game was played in from the start when you see someone like Lomax involved in that way.

Edited May 30, 2023 by FearTheVee

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Do you think those camara angles can conclusively prove that no punch was thrown in the melee of all those players coming together?

Dunno we didn’t see them all.

[Chrispmartha]

20 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Don't think this is true.  He is not in camera shot throughout, the camera moves away from Lomax.

The TJ said he saw him punch him, Lomax had a face consistent with a punch.  The only mind boggling thing would be how Lomax's face became punched without being punched.

As for the head rubbing - it has always wound me up.  But the only difference between the Lomax incident and the Leeds players who did the same on a number of occassions is that no Saints player overreacted to it with striking.

It is certainly not the type of behaviour you would normally see from Lomax, unlike a lot of players across the league including Saints, which probably serves to emphasise the poor spirit the game was played in from the start when you see someone like Lomax involved in that way.

I don’t remember a Leeds player rubbing the head of a saints player.

 

As I say I don’t like that kind of behaviour and Walters was certainly guilty of trying to wind Saints players up.

[Dunbar]

30 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Dunno we didn’t see them all.

It is far more difficult to prove something didn't happen than to prove something did happen.  

Leeds would need to show that there was no punch and no opportunity to throw a punch in that scuffle in order to comprehensively overturn the testimony of the touch judge that he saw a punch thrown.

[Chrispmartha]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It is far more difficult to prove something didn't happen than to prove something did happen.  

Leeds would need to show that there was no punch and no opportunity to throw a punch in that scuffle in order to comprehensively overturn the testimony of the touch judge that he saw a punch thrown.

I get that but Its worth a go IMO. Theres camera footage which doesn’t show a punch so i don’t think it would be deemed frivolous in this case.