More disciplinary controversy

[north yorks trinity]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

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

Congratulations on a fine victory against Leigh and well done to Saints in the other qualifying semi (it'll be Wire's year next season).

One game at a time or it'll come back to bite you!!

[RigbyLuger]

Could you pick your first team for the Reserve Grand Final, even if none had played a single game in the comp?

[Gooleboy]

A totally ridiculous rule, but why does the RFL allow it when they know it will cause controversy and conspiracy theories? 

[Padge]

5 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

The answer isn't obvious ? 

Isn't it ? 

Reserve team games cannot be used for first team bans , how simple do you want it ? 

So a reserve team player gets promoted for a one off game and picks up a ban, the player he was brought in to replace returns and the banned player returns to the reserves, so he doesn't have to serve a ban as it was in a first team game. How will he serve his ban?

 

[gingerjon]

6 hours ago, Padge said:

So a reserve team player gets promoted for a one off game and picks up a ban, the player he was brought in to replace returns and the banned player returns to the reserves, so he doesn't have to serve a ban as it was in a first team game. How will he serve his ban?

 

First team bans are served in first team games.

Reserve team bans are served in the reserve team.

If this felt to be gameable then adopt a "Why not both?" approach and the miscreant will miss one senior game and one reserve game, over separate match weekends.

But, regardless, the first two lines of the post cover it.

[GUBRATS]

6 hours ago, Padge said:

So a reserve team player gets promoted for a one off game and picks up a ban, the player he was brought in to replace returns and the banned player returns to the reserves, so he doesn't have to serve a ban as it was in a first team game. How will he serve his ban?

 

As per GJ above 

[ELBOWSEYE]

8 hours ago, north yorks trinity said:

Congratulations on a fine victory against Leigh and well done to Saints in the other qualifying semi (it'll be Wire's year next season).

One game at a time or it'll come back to bite you!!

Wire are still in the competition, certainly not favourites but still in it .

[sam4731]

What makes this even more of a farce is that George Delaney has a one match ban for us but because we have to play a first team match, he is banned for that. Don't worry though, he is eligible for the reserves GF where he was sure to have played the 3 Wigan players that are banned for that, if they were allowed to.

[Lowdesert]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

First team bans are served in first team games.

Reserve team bans are served in the reserve team.

If this felt to be gameable then adopt a "Why not both?" approach and the miscreant will miss one senior game and one reserve game, over separate match weekends.

But, regardless, the first two lines of the post cover it.

Agree with that.

If the ban covered all games of RL then that would be clear enough and arrangements for reserves games were to benefit player development.

[sam4731]

Throwing it out there... if the player is under 18, can they serve a ban for the academy?

[Dunbar]

After sleeping on the problem, I think I have found a graceful solution that should be acceptable to all parties.

The Wigan players have to serve the ban for their next 1st team game rather than the reserve fixture but Wigan get 3 extra interchanges in the match to compensate. 

Actually, let's just round it up to 12 interchanges.

[WN83]

27 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

What makes this even more of a farce is that George Delaney has a one match ban for us but because we have to play a first team match, he is banned for that. Don't worry though, he is eligible for the reserves GF where he was sure to have played the 3 Wigan players that are banned for that, if they were allowed to.

The pitfalls of not finishing in the top 2 I guess. 

It hasn't mattered to Wigan in this case but I saw a very valid point about teams finishing in the top 2 and how when they get one game bans from the games in the last weekly round, their players usually cannot play in the semi final, whereas teams finishing in positions 3-6, who then make it through to the semi final, have their players available. There shouldn't be a downside to finishing in the top 2 and that also needs looking at, just as this ridiculous reserves scenario does. If you finish in the top 2 spots and get a ban in the last weekly round, the first week of the play offs should count towards it, regardless of you having a game or not IMO. 

[redjonn]

As a matter of interest.... does the player have to play a minimum number of minutes in the match to count towards the ban,  i.e. French just has to be on the bench or comes on for the first minute and then subbed, etc etc

[phiggins]

6 minutes ago, WN83 said:

The pitfalls of not finishing in the top 2 I guess. 

It hasn't mattered to Wigan in this case but I saw a very valid point about teams finishing in the top 2 and how when they get one game bans from the games in the last weekly round, their players usually cannot play in the semi final, whereas teams finishing in positions 3-6, who then make it through to the semi final, have their players available. There shouldn't be a downside to finishing in the top 2 and that also needs looking at, just as this ridiculous reserves scenario does. If you finish in the top 2 spots and get a ban in the last weekly round, the first week of the play offs should count towards it, regardless of you having a game or not IMO. 

Not sure that's valid at all. A one match ban is a one match ban, which if incurred in a first team game should mean the next first team game. 

[EagleEyePie]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

First team bans are served in first team games.

Reserve team bans are served in the reserve team.

If this felt to be gameable then adopt a "Why not both?" approach and the miscreant will miss one senior game and one reserve game, over separate match weekends.

But, regardless, the first two lines of the post cover it.

How would a "Why not both?" approach actually be implemented? Would it apply all the time or on a case by case basis? There's definitely logic in having bans that apply to the level you're playing at but it still means someone could play in the reserves grand final, commit an offence that's worthy of several matches and be able to turn up in the SL grand final the following week. It also means a player could pick up a lengthy ban in the reserves and join a team that doesn't have a reserve side and never have to serve the suspension. If the approach is to ban players for senior games and reserve games that means reserve games could still counting towards the suspension doesn't it?

Perhaps bans in reserves fixtures should count for both reserve (U19 if eligible) and first team games, while first team bans only count for first team games? Though that still leaves the issue of a player getting a 5 match ban in the first team and playing every week for the U19's or reserves for the rest of the year without serving the suspension.

I'm still banging the drum for only players outside the top 25 on the cap being allowed to use reserve games for suspensions, and top 25 players not being able to feature for the reserves if suspended. It might provide a slight benefit to a young player who has a strong season and makes the first team unexpectedly but it's unlikely to happen, given how infrequently this situation arises over the course of a year. In the current situation it would mean none of Wigan's 3 suspended players would be eligible for the semi final (which seems right) and they also couldn't just feature in the reserve grand final for the sake of it.

[Dunbar]

12 minutes ago, redjonn said:

As a matter of interest.... does the player have to play a minimum number of minutes in the match to count towards the ban,  i.e. French just has to be on the bench or comes on for the first minute and then subbed, etc etc

Not sure you have fully thought this one through.

[FearTheVee]

No issues at all with Wigan in all this, but the rule is clearly not fit for purpose.

[Padge]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

First team bans are served in first team games.

Reserve team bans are served in the reserve team.

If this felt to be gameable then adopt a "Why not both?" approach and the miscreant will miss one senior game and one reserve game, over separate match weekends.

But, regardless, the first two lines of the post cover it.

t doesn't work. You have not thought it through.

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

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

Evidence please!

[WN83]

10 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

No issues at all with Wigan in all this, but the rule is clearly not fit for purpose.

Other clubs have used it previously and it's a ridiculous situation that needs sorting. I've read people saying this has been around for donkeys years, going back to when we have reserves rugby 30/40+ years ago but obviously this instance stands out like a sore thumb. It happens rarely because clubs would usually have a first team game on the same weekend as a reserves fixture. It needs to be closed off at the end of this season. 

[Harry Stottle]

The solution is quite simple, let common sense prevail whether it be a reserve or first team fixture, if the ban is deemed to be purposefully used as a loophole as the present system allows and Wigan are utilising then that is simply not allowed.

Now before anyone says that cannot be done, who on these pages believes that Wigan are not taking advantage of the present rulings?

[WN83]

26 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Not sure that's valid at all. A one match ban is a one match ban, which if incurred in a first team game should mean the next first team game. 

But if you finish top 2, you don't get a game the following week and therefore are at a disadvantage when it comes to bans, over clubs finishing 3rd to 6th. 

If we look at Saints this weekend, they play a team in Warrington, who are in bad form, missing their best forward and who have a poor record against Saints, so Saints should have a reasonably comfortable day. Say James Roby has picked up a two match ban last week and Sam Tomkins had also picked up a two match ban. Those two legends of the sport are retiring at the end of the season. Catalans finished top 2 but Sam Tomkins 2 game ban finishes his season, whereas the same ban for Roby would allow him to play in the final (if Saints made it), simply because his club finished lower in the table. That just doesn't feel right to me because all the advantages should be stacked for the teams finishing in those top spots. 

[WN83]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

The solution is quite simple, let common sense prevail whether it be a reserve or first team fixture, if the ban is deemed to be purposefully used as a loophole as the present system allows and Wigan are utilising then that is simply not allowed.

Now before anyone says that cannot be done, who on these pages believes that Wigan are not taking advantage of the present rulings?

Wigan aren't taking utilising or taking advantage of anything. They haven't put some sort of application in to allow these lads to be available. It's just the rules as things stand, so what are Wigan meant to do, pull them out of a semi final that they're automatically available to play in? 

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, WN83 said:

Wigan aren't taking utilising or taking advantage of anything. They haven't put some sort of application in to allow these lads to be available. It's just the rules as things stand, so what are Wigan meant to do, pull them out of a semi final that they're automatically available to play in? 

Don't talk crip.

[WN83]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Don't talk crip.

Enlighten me on what is incorrect in what I've said?