MRP Minutes

[del capo]

2 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

Watts sent off for absolutely  nothing - heard he is not happy and thinking of walking away from the game- imagine RU could use a tall off loader like him

Dupree went for a bust but was closed down  by shoulder charges from both sides that rattled his head like it was in a pinball machine.

Definite red and Westerman  a touch lucky not to be cited. 

Would not be welcomed by RU.  They are tougher on this than we are as yet. Check also their Rule 19.3.3 on recognising bans imposed by other Governing Bodies.........

[SUPERSTUD]

Not read all the thread before posting so another poster could have already posted the same as me. IMHO the fact that Wigan are involved in the WCC this week has had a bearing on the decision making process in relation to Harry Smith. Consistency is all we ask for no matter which club we are aligned with.

[LeytherRob]

https://www.instagram.com/p/C3igBprsyIa/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Can't really argue with Luke Yates here, the 2 examples that went unpunished look far worse than the one he got 3 games for.

[SUPERSTUD]

8 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/C3igBprsyIa/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Can't really argue with Luke Yates here, the 2 examples that went unpunished look far worse than the one he got 3 games for.

He will most probably now get hauled in by RFL for having the audacity to express his opinion in public.

[northamptoncougar]

How the hell was that a 3 game ban?

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, Gates1 said:

Hard to have any enthusiasm about the game currently,

My feelings exactly, again like I have done for many many years I have paid and got my season ticket, I am wishing I hadn't now, and this is only the pre curser for next season's enforcements I doubt I will be buying another season ticket.

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 hour ago, del capo said:

Dupree went for a bust but was closed down  by shoulder charges from both sides that rattled his head like it was in a pinball machine.

Definite red and Westerman  a touch lucky not to be cited. 

Would not be welcomed by RU.  They are tougher on this than we are as yet. Check also their Rule 19.3.3 on recognising bans imposed by other Governing Bodies.........

The day I look up a fat Vichy rule is the day I have given up on life. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

I am not sure anyone would complain if the RFL decided to start bans after the WCC, or only had disciplinary hearings for affected players after the WCC takes place. I can’t see the NRLers being bothered, as that would publicly show they cared and remove their “wasn’t trying anyway” defence, and you could argue that an SL team would prefer to benefit from any ban. I don’t think Smith’s was at all ban worthy, but I can’t for the life of me see how Watts might end up with a long ban. I don’t think he should even have been sent off. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, del capo said:

Dupree went for a bust but was closed down  by shoulder charges from both sides that rattled his head like it was in a pinball machine.

Definite red and Westerman  a touch lucky not to be cited. 

Would not be welcomed by RU.  They are tougher on this than we are as yet. Check also their Rule 19.3.3 on recognising bans imposed by other Governing Bodies.........

Watts may well have realized the new interpretation of the laws won't suit his game 

Highly doubt he'll walk away though...unless he has a career to instantly fall back on elsewhere 

[Zilla Budgie]

22 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

The day I look up a fat Vichy rule is the day I have given up on life. 

I guess we'll get used to these OTT decisions from officials...eventually.

Edited February 19 by Zilla Budgie

[George Watt]

7 hours ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

 

As for Smith, I was expecting him to be suspended for one match as was Adam Keighran after last season’s GF for a similar tackle. If Wigan had been playing Leigh this weekend would he have been banned? I think quite possibly but if this had been Nathan Cleary in the NRL would he have been banned. I think not.

Nathan Cleary was banned for 5 games for a spear tackle back in 2022( last 5 games of the regular season), so would have been justifiably punished with a suspension for a tackle like Smith's. His half back mate Luai was also out with an injury for that period too.

[Jinking Jimmy]

5 hours ago, George Watt said:

Nathan Cleary was banned for 5 games for a spear tackle back in 2022( last 5 games of the regular season), so would have been justifiably punished with a suspension for a tackle like Smith's. His half back mate Luai was also out with an injury for that period too.

I think there’s a difference between a “spear” tackle,  or “dump” tackle, to use the Aussie description, and a “tip” tackle. If you look at the Cleary tackle on YouTube I think you’ll agree it was far worse than the Smith one. In my opinion Cleary would not have been banned by the NRL for a tackle similar to Smith’s a week before a WCC. I understand if you disagree.

Edited February 20 by Jinking Jimmy

[muckymunksy]

They is another thread saying will 24 be the best NRL season. 

 

2024 is going be the worst super league season that's for certain. 

[FearTheVee]

10 minutes ago, muckymunksy said:

2024 is going be the worst super league season that's for certain. 

What reactionary nonsense.

[Sports Prophet]

For what it’s worth, I thought McIlorum is hard done by. Player spun out of a tackle and lowered his head from the beginning of the spin to the point of contact. It was yellow card at best for me with “mitigation”. 

[redjonn]

Consistency... only way can have consistency is if its a fixed punishment for a particular offence.  Otherwise it will always be subjective depending upon precise circumstances and interpretations applied to adjudge punishment.

What I find with some comments when they say we want consistency and then apply their view of mitigating and hence subjective opinion of the punishment... or compare to different offences punishments which are not precisely the same context.

If we had fixed punishments no matter context or mitigation then people would moan. Otherwise we should accept the element of subjectivity and hence it won't always be consistent... at least we have an explanation of why punishment and hence mitigation/subjective opinion applied.

Edited February 20 by redjonn

[Bull Mania]

48 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

What reactionary nonsense.

To be fair I don't think it's that OTT.  The games at the weekend weren't the greatest.  Eleven players are set to receive bans this weekend. Some are fair, others aren't. 

 

[FearTheVee]

12 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:

To be fair I don't think it's that OTT.  The games at the weekend weren't the greatest.  Eleven players are set to receive bans this weekend. Some are fair, others aren't. 

 

The games weren’t the greatest but I must have missed the period in time when torrential downpours in the first game of the season was a recipe for brilliant rugby.

The biggest culprits for ruining a game that I watched were the players of Hull FC not the ref or the rules.

Edited February 20 by FearTheVee

[Harry Stottle]

10 hours ago, northamptoncougar said:

How the hell was that a 3 game ban?

He was playing for the wrong club.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

The games weren’t the greatest but I must have missed the period in time when torrential downpours in the first game of the season was a recipe for brilliant rugby.

The biggest culprits for ruining a game that I watched were the players of Hull FC not the ref or the rules.

Indeed, it often happens. The first few games and atrocious weather aren't conducive to great Rood Rugby League.

[phiggins]

24 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Consistency... only way can have consistency is if its a fixed punishment for a particular offence.  Otherwise it will always be subjective depending upon precise circumstances and interpretations applied to adjudge punishment.

What I find with some comments when they say we want consistency and then apply their view of mitigating and hence subjective opinion of the punishment... or compare to different offences punishments which are not precisely the same context.

If we had fixed punishments no matter context or mitigation then people would moan. Otherwise we should accept the element of subjectivity and hence it won't always be consistent... at least we have an explanation of why punishment and hence mitigation/subjective opinion applied.

Consistency may not be the right word, but you'd want more common sense.  A potential 6 match ban for Watts, while nothing for Westerman for direct head contact which knocked Dupree into his path, and only a fine for Smith tip tackling somebody onto their head does not make sense.

[Dave T]

52 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

For what it’s worth, I thought McIlorum is hard done by. Player spun out of a tackle and lowered his head from the beginning of the spin to the point of contact. It was yellow card at best for me with “mitigation”. 

I think if you stand tall and make no attempt to bend your back/knees, then you have no mitigation. I genuinely believe that has to be the starting point tbh. 

[Harry Stottle]

10 hours ago, Zilla Budgie said:

I guess we'll get used to these OTT decisions from officials...eventually.

I won't after this season I will be long gone Budgie over to the amatuer game until that gets spoiled.

I am happy in the knowledge that for over 60 years I have watched the best this sport has had to offer at professional level, it used to be that the refs got all the accolades when "they weren't noticed" during the game, the authorities have now put them at the centre of attention and then they sit back like "big brother" analysing and scouring every second of every game trying to find something that 3 onfield, two offield and those in attendance on the terraces and in the stands have not noticed, I will never get used to it nor will I want to try.

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

The games weren’t the greatest but I must have missed the period in time when torrential downpours in the first game of the season was a recipe for brilliant rugby.

The biggest culprits for ruining a game that I watched were the players of Hull FC not the ref or the rules.

I agree. 

In terms of the discipline issue, I think people are going over the top. Of the red cards, I think the high tackles were broadly fine, I thought the knee to the head was slightly unlucky as more reckless and I don't think he was intending to hit his head. In fact there could have been an argument for more reds. 

One of the things that will come from the new tv deal is that all of these incidents are now seen in full HD and scrutinised by us all. Which is a great thing, but likely to lead to more focus on these controversial incidents. 

[Damien]

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think if you stand tall and make no attempt to bend your back/knees, then you have no mitigation. I genuinely believe that has to be the starting point tbh. 

I do think there are several general factors that should be considered in mitigation and this is one of them. Does the tackler bend his back/legs and does the tackler try to wrap his arms are the two obvious ones. Then things like does the attacker dip but the tackler has to be making a proper, legal attempt first really - that is the key.