More disciplinary controversy

[Dunbar]

3 hours ago, WN83 said:

It feels like they try to apply too many formulas to the incidents already, with gradings and scales of seriousness and that can just take away from simply judging an incident on it's own merits.

The disciplinary process has strict guidelines for the type of offence, the severity of the offence and the punishments that are applicable for each of these grades.

And yet the single biggest criticism is that the disciplinary process is inconsistent.

Imagine the level of inconsistency (real or perceived) should we throw away the guidelines and just look at each case in isolation. 

I don't particularly disagree with your premise of looking at everything case by case but when then you need some guidelines and frameworks to provide consistency.

[LeeF]

14 minutes ago, WN83 said:

They'll need to own up to being wrong then or we just continue with this current madness. 

And the chances of that happening …..

[sam4731]

6 hours 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. 

By your logic the fairer thing to do would be to have George Delaney serve his 1 match ban in the hypothetical semi final against Catalans as opposed to Warrington this week.

[WN83]

20 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The disciplinary process has strict guidelines for the type of offence, the severity of the offence and the punishments that are applicable for each of these grades.

And yet the single biggest criticism is that the disciplinary process is inconsistent.

Imagine the level of inconsistency (real or perceived) should we throw away the guidelines and just look at each case in isolation. 

I don't particularly disagree with your premise of looking at everything case by case but when then you need some guidelines and frameworks to provide consistency.

The sheer amount of incidents they're looking at leads to a natural inconsistency though IMO. To sit there and go through every tackle, of every game,  looking for things to punish, means we're seeing so many more incidents being picked up on then they ever have in the past and then every citing/charge has plenty of comparable incidents for people to look back on and call out 'inconsistent'.  

We'll never have a perfect system but I don't think we could make it much more of a mess than it currently is. In the past it was very rare that a poor challenge would not get put on report at least and it would then be looked at. They could still have a grading system/points system in the background of a model that goes back to looking at only incidents put on report by the match officials. Now each game will be televised in some form, could a 4th official not note down incidents he sees on the monitors as well and we're at least then getting a live perspective, rather than re-running the game with a pen and paper looking for things on replays. That would cut back on the nit picking we see currently. 

 

[Dave T]

I have a real issue with the way some offences have been downplayed over the last 12m, and I think we have to show some intent on rooting out serious foul play. 

I would however, add that I think there is a balancing act here. It feels a touch odd to me that there were 5 players banned from that Wigan v Leigh game. In reality, the majority of them were minor technical offences, albeit with risk of injury, so I do understand why they have been banned. 

I think there may be a better system whereby smaller more innocuous offences build up a system of warnings and can end up with bans, and we stay focused on the late hits, high tackles, dangerous play etc. 

I know what I describe is broadly the principle of what they are doing, but I don't think they have the balance right to be honest. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

I am a fan of the disciplinary process as a process. I think it applies the rules consistently, within clear guidelines. As far as I can tell the point here is not that the process is wrong but rather that this rule is wrong. It didn’t just appear, the clubs accepted it and a number of them have “benefited” from it in the past. So, the controversy has actually nothing to do with Wigan, however much that is the spin some posters would like to put on it. 
 

if people don’t like the rule they should get annoyed with their clubs, including Wire, HKR and Leigh. 
 

I would also note that in this instance, as opposed to the usual way this exception works, Wigan benefit because we have invested enough into our reserves to have qualified for the this final. 

[Dave T]

Superb performance from the WDL. 

[bobbruce]

8 hours 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

I’m not sure what you mean he can’t play in it he’s banned but the reserve game will clear his ban. 

[bobbruce]

7 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Before answering that, I would need to know if bans for players all season have automatically included first team and reserve team games without any intervention from the club involved.

They have but the reserve team game only comes into it if the first team doesn’t have a fixture. 

[bobbruce]

A simple way to fix any issues here is to give players bans in weeks rather than games. Secondly when handing out this ban I’m 100% certain the disciplinary new that Wigan would be able to use this to allow French to play in the semi. So they were obviously happy that was punishment enough. 

[bobbruce]

2 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I am a fan of the disciplinary process as a process. I think it applies the rules consistently, within clear guidelines. As far as I can tell the point here is not that the process is wrong but rather that this rule is wrong. It didn’t just appear, the clubs accepted it and a number of them have “benefited” from it in the past. So, the controversy has actually nothing to do with Wigan, however much that is the spin some posters would like to put on it. 
 

if people don’t like the rule they should get annoyed with their clubs, including Wire, HKR and Leigh. 
 

I would also note that in this instance, as opposed to the usual way this exception works, Wigan benefit because we have invested enough into our reserves to have qualified for the this final. 

Has anyone checked the interchanges from the semi final yet. 

[Padge]

9 hours ago, FearTheVee said:

Isn't this really easy?  If you get banned in the first team for say 2 games, you can't play at any level until two first team games have elapsed (friendlies excluded).

If you get banned at reserve level for two games, you can't play at any level until two reserve games have elapsed (friendlies excluded).

The most important thing is maintaining the integrity of the disciplinary at the top flight and the above would do that.

That could mean a player who is on the cusp of first team, maybe has been brought in and out of the squad as the next man up could in effect be banned for 3 games when he only got 2.

Game 1 reserves, game 2 he could be first man into the first team normally to replace injured player X but must stand down, game 3 reserve team game. Player has been stood down for 3 games for a 2 match ban.

How often does this reserve team 'menace' occur, and how often has it affected 3 players from 1 team at the same time. Storm in a bloody tea cup.

[Cheadle Leyther]

Thankfully Tom Amone has had his appeal upheld.

[redjonn]

2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

I’m not sure what you mean he can’t play in it he’s banned but the reserve game will clear his ban. 

Well yes, but when he is selected for the reserve game does he have to play or can he just be an unused bench interchange...and hence my question still count as done his ban

[bobbruce]

Just now, redjonn said:

Well yes, but when he is selected for the reserve game does he have to play or can he just be an unused bench interchange...and hence my question still count as done his ban

He won’t be selected for the reserves,he won’t be on the bench and he won’t play any minutes. He’s using the reserve game to cancel out his ban. 

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Well yes, but when he is selected for the reserve game does he have to play or can he just be an unused bench interchange...and hence my question still count as done his ban

He can sit at home watching strictly if he wants 

[redjonn]

Just now, bobbruce said:

He won’t be selected for the reserves,he won’t be on the bench and he won’t play any minutes. He’s using the reserve game to cancel out his ban. 

Yep...

[sam4731]

Just to put these ridiculous rules into context, Bureta Faraimo and Kenny Edwards used the mid season internationals as part of their respective bans despite neither of their nations playing. Who they were banned playing for is a mystery.

[Padge]

I don't remember there being a big fuss about this.

Castleford Tigers trio Kenny Edwards, Liam Watts and Bureta Faraimo did not miss a Super League game despite respective one-match bans. All three were able to serve their suspensions for the reserves during the international break 

I wonder why?

[Exiled Wiganer]

4 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Has anyone checked the interchanges from the semi final yet. 

Funny you should say that, given that the interchange rule that we were caught on was one that had not been applied in regular season attaches, that Wire accepted the result and were happy to play us, but Saints raised the issue and refused to accept that outcome. You can rest assured that Saints are all over potential Wigan breaches. 

[bobbruce]

1 minute ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Funny you should say that, given that the interchange rule that we were caught on was one that had not been applied in regular season attaches, that Wire accepted the result and were happy to play us, but Saints raised the issue and refused to accept that outcome. You can rest assured that Saints are all over potential Wigan breaches. 

To be fair I should’ve known Wigan would be the moral victors in all this. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

Superb performance from the WDL. 

I was a little concerned after the Leigh match thread that we would struggle, but I think we needed that to get us match fit. At this stage, we could bring back Flower and O’Loughlin for the final and still have a good go at defending the indefensible. 

[Dave T]

39 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

Just to put these ridiculous rules into context, Bureta Faraimo and Kenny Edwards used the mid season internationals as part of their respective bans despite neither of their nations playing. Who they were banned playing for is a mystery.

They used the reserve fixtures rather than international games I believe.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Funny you should say that, given that the interchange rule that we were caught on was one that had not been applied in regular season attaches, that Wire accepted the result and were happy to play us, but Saints raised the issue and refused to accept that outcome. You can rest assured that Saints are all over potential Wigan breaches. 

Apparently Wire appealed the breach.

[Padge]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

They used the reserve fixtures rather than international games I believe.

Correct, the weekend of the international their reserves had a game which covered their suspensions. I don't recall a beep about it on here.