More disciplinary controversy

[GUBRATS]

15 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Maybe if Leigh had a reserve side they could benefit in situations like this one. As for the disallowed Leigh try, get over it and maybe discuss the disallowed Wigan try. Just because the Sky crew say it was a try doesn’t make it a try. That’s their opinion.

Re the French incident, this has happened before with, for example, St.Helens players McCarthy-Scarsbrook receiving 0 matches and 1 match and Makinson 0 matches for the same offence against a referee.

So you wouldn't have complained if Leigh had set up a reserve game mid week in between first team games ?  , if of course we had a reserve team 

Happy to discuss Wigan's disallowed try , it was obstruction clear and simple , no argument from anybody , just glad Matty isn't a ref , because he clearly doesn't understand the rule 

Whattaboutery , do 2 wrongs make a right ? 

[EagleEyePie]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Which other clubs have benefited from this? This is usually a factor at the start of the year when somebody gets banned in a pre-season game, which I think is more reasonable, but where has this been an issue during the year? Was it around cup weekends? 

I remember Cas benefitting from this rule last season when they faced us. Liam Watts had been given a 2 match ban but missed 1 game + a reserves game and was free to play against us. 

I also think Wakefield benefitted from it this year. One of their players (Liam Hood I think) picked up a 1 match ban that was served with a reserves game.

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

I remember Cas benefitting from this rule last season when they faced us. Liam Watts had been given a 2 match ban but missed 1 game + a reserves game and was free to play against us. 

I also think Wakefield benefitted from it this year. One of their players (Liam Hood I think) picked up a 1 match ban that was served with a reserves game.

Which makes it all the worse really doesn't it , it's been highlighted as being wrong , might we find clubs scheduling reserve games just prior to important games in the future ' just in case ' ?

[LeeF]

It’s happened before this season. It’s happened in previous seasons. I suppose it’s a benefit of running a Reserve team. If clubs want it closing then it would have been done before now.

French’s ban is in line with other similar incidents and probably reflects what he did rather than what some want him to have done in order to justify a ban. Again whether it’s right or not is a separate discussion but there is consistency. 

[Jinking Jimmy]

8 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So you wouldn't have complained if Leigh had set up a reserve game mid week in between first team games ?  , if of course we had a reserve team 

Happy to discuss Wigan's disallowed try , it was obstruction clear and simple , no argument from anybody , just glad Matty isn't a ref , because he clearly doesn't understand the rule 

Whattaboutery , do 2 wrongs make a right ? 

You really need to come off the fence. 

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

You really need to come off the fence. 

Or hide his loyalties. 

[EagleEyePie]

32 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Or the club itself could stand down a player committing such a serious misdemeanour 

Does it look good for the sport that these 3 players will essentially not serve any ban ? 

Your last sentence is a question I've already answered so I don't know why you've asked it. The first doesn't solve the problem. The onus shouldn't be on clubs in that situation. Just suspend players for the next games they are reasonably expected to take part in. In this case, French would miss the semi final and not a game he would never have taken part in anyway. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

So, a rule was applied correctly. Which is WIgan’s fault how exactly? It is testimony to our club’s talent that we were able to benefit (as opposed to clubs usually benefiting through being knocked out of the cup). If other clubs had invested enough in their reserves to stop us making the final, or if we hadn’t finished top, thus earning a week off, then we couldn’t have benefited. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

Oh, and Hill could well have played in that final. 

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

I remember Cas benefitting from this rule last season when they faced us. Liam Watts had been given a 2 match ban but missed 1 game + a reserves game and was free to play against us. 

I also think Wakefield benefitted from it this year. One of their players (Liam Hood I think) picked up a 1 match ban that was served with a reserves game.

Yes.

It really is a farcical rule.

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

Your last sentence is a question I've already answered so I don't know why you've asked it. The first doesn't solve the problem. The onus shouldn't be on clubs in that situation. Just suspend players for the next games they are reasonably expected to take part in. In this case, French would miss the semi final and not a game he would never have taken part in anyway. 

" reasonably" becomes the issue , my first sentence was about the club ' standing down ' a fringe/junior player from the reserves if he's come into the first team and committed a serious foul , not a first team player , all part of the education I'd suggest 

[Click]

I have no issues with Wigan using this loophole - It is something we've heard clubs doing for years and years, and honestly, should have been stopped a long time ago.

I do like the idea of top 25 players being banned for first team games only, and after that then it could be a mix of reserve/first team as they are the players that generally play reserves, rather than first team unless needed.

[GUBRATS]

8 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

So, a rule was applied correctly. Which is WIgan’s fault how exactly? It is testimony to our club’s talent that we were able to benefit (as opposed to clubs usually benefiting through being knocked out of the cup). If other clubs had invested enough in their reserves to stop us making the final, or if we hadn’t finished top, thus earning a week off, then we couldn’t have benefited. 

Mmmmmmm quite 

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Which makes it all the worse really doesn't it , it's been highlighted as being wrong , might we find clubs scheduling reserve games just prior to important games in the future ' just in case ' ?

I think that they can only be used to serve bans if your first grade doesn't have a game. 

[Chris22]

50 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Which other clubs have benefited from this? This is usually a factor at the start of the year when somebody gets banned in a pre-season game, which I think is more reasonable, but where has this been an issue during the year? Was it around cup weekends? 

Castleford benefited from it earlier this season, three players in one weekend! (link)

Josh Griffin served one match of his seven in a reserve match, earlier this year (link)

And John Bateman was named in the England Knights squad to ensure he returned earlier for the England senior team in last year's World Cup (link)

[Chris22]

I think what also needs to be made clear is that Wigan have not actively done anything. Let alone anything wrong. Their players have been suspended and have been told by the RFL which game that suspension applies to. They have not in any way bent the rules, acted against the spirit of the rule or exploited anything.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

I think what also needs to be made clear is that Wigan have not actively done anything. Let alone anything wrong. Their players have been suspended and have been told by the RFL which game that suspension applies to. They have not in any way bent the rules, acted against the spirit of the rule or exploited anything.

You are quite correct.

It is a nonsense rule kept on the books by idiots.

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

I think what also needs to be made clear is that Wigan have not actively done anything. Let alone anything wrong. Their players have been suspended and have been told by the RFL which game that suspension applies to. They have not in any way bent the rules, acted against the spirit of the rule or exploited anything.

Correct , any and all clubs would have done the same 

Still smells 

[Harry Stottle]

53 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Again whether it’s right or not is a separate discussion but there is consistency

When were the rules changed from 7 years ago when there was a spate of bannings for deliberate contact with the ref?

[Jinking Jimmy]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

When were the rules changed from 7 years ago when there was a spate of bannings for deliberate contact with the ref?

At least last season when the McCarthy-Scarsbrook / Makinson incidents occurred.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

The Wigan reserve games probably going to cost Rovers a GF appearance 

Nah I don’t want to smash Wigan without French anyway, it won’t be as satisfying

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Chris22 said:

I think what also needs to be made clear is that Wigan have not actively done anything. Let alone anything wrong. Their players have been suspended and have been told by the RFL which game that suspension applies to. They have not in any way bent the rules, acted against the spirit of the rule or exploited anything.

As you have pointed out, the RFL abused this rule themselves in the lead up to the World Cup last year - at a far more calculated level than anything anyone else has done. That suggests they aren't interested in closing this loophole, and I'm not sure why the clubs would drive it to be closed.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

As you have pointed out, the RFL abused this rule themselves in the lead up to the World Cup last year - at a far more calculated level than anything anyone else has done. That suggests they aren't interested in closing this loophole, and I'm not sure why the clubs would drive it to be closed.

Only in RL 

[ELBOWSEYE]

2 hours ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Maybe if Leigh had a reserve side they could benefit in situations like this one. As for the disallowed Leigh try, get over it and maybe discuss the disallowed Wigan try. Just because the Sky crew say it was a try doesn’t make it a try. That’s their opinion.

Re the French incident, this has happened before with, for example, St.Helens players McCarthy-Scarsbrook receiving 0 matches and 1 match and Makinson 0 matches for the same offence against a referee.

Wigan was not a disallowed Try, the whistle was blown before, so it could have been Try and was harsh but it wasn't disallowed.

[Jinking Jimmy]

1 hour ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Wigan was not a disallowed Try, the whistle was blown before, so it could have been Try and was harsh but it wasn't disallowed.

Fair comment

Edited September 25, 2023 by Jinking Jimmy