Fri 23rd Feb: SL: Warrington Wolves v Hull FC KO 8pm (Sky)

[moorside roughyed]

40 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Were you there?

I was. The game did seem a tad poorly attended. 

[MZH]

5 minutes ago, arcticchris said:

An option could be to remove that player from the game for the remainder of the match but only reduce the team by a player for 10 minutes. This would be along the lines of how ice hockey deal with serious offences that deserve to end the players participation but doesn’t then destroy the competitive balance of the game.

If you wanted to go further you could also dock the offending team 2 interchanges for a red card thus increasing their fatigue load.

There are plenty of ways to discourage high tackling without throwing red cards all over the place. Your suggestions are both sensible. Even just making the fines bigger, or fining the clubs for persistent offences. The discussion needs to be had.

[graveyard johnny]

THIS - cos the wire player got a nasty cut with blood the game was stopped and the whole thing blown out of proportion - had there been no cut or blood the game would have carried on and nothing said - had the hull player sustained the same cut instead would he have got sent off? 

[MZH]

3 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

THIS - cos the wire player got a nasty cut with blood the game was stopped and the whole thing blown out of proportion - had there been no cut or blood the game would have carried on and nothing said - had the hull player sustained the same cut instead would he have got sent off? 

Yeah pretty much this. The referee didn't seem to see any issue in real time. If Currie doesn't get cut and just carries on with the ptb I doubt we would have even seen a replay.

As an aside, are we going to start seeing red cards for "friendly fire." If accidental contact is enough to warrant a red what difference does it make whether its your team mate or an opponent? A head injury is a head injury.

[Padge]

10 minutes ago, MZH said:

There are plenty of ways to discourage high tackling without throwing red cards all over the place. Your suggestions are both sensible. Even just making the fines bigger, or fining the clubs for persistent offences. The discussion needs to be had.

i have been a long time advocate of fining coaches for players behaviour. If your team (as a coach) commits a pre-set number of offences then you are hit with a big fine, persistent offenders are banned from attending games, or can attend but must sit in a naughty box with no communication available.

[MZH]

Just now, Padge said:

i have been a long time advocate of fining coaches for players behaviour. If your team (as a coach) commits a pre-set number of offences then you are hit with a big fine, persistent offenders are banned from attending games, or can attend but must sit in a naughty box with no communication available.

Yeah I'd be fine with that. Coaches can't mitigate for moments of madness (see Pele last week), but if teams are doing it persistently and the coach isn't making enough effort to curb it then I'd be in favour of fining them.

[Futtocks]

Just watched the highlights (I had the SL+ game on live this evening) and Nu Brown got a really rough decision there. As said earlier, the sight of blood almost certainly had an effect.

But it's early in the new regime for players and officials, who are also shaking off early season rust. I think it's more likely that people will talk things over and the game will find a reasonable compromise, rather than the world coming to an end.

The reaction on social media is, of course, competitively apocalyptic. But that's what the internet is for.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, moorside roughyed said:

I was. The game did seem a tad poorly attended. 

Aye.. I mean we have numbers and history to tell us it was a poor crowd, irrespective of who was there. 

[The Future is League]

Nu Brown didn't even know he was sent off.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/hull-warrington-nu-brown-red-32200631

[AB90]

7 hours ago, MZH said:

There are plenty of ways to discourage high tackling without throwing red cards all over the place. Your suggestions are both sensible. Even just making the fines bigger, or fining the clubs for persistent offences. The discussion needs to be had.

100%. I’ve always thought that significantly increasing the monetary fines would be a far better way to deal with this. If a player new that he would be fined his entire weekly wage if they committed a yellow or red card high tackle offence then rest assured they would do everything they in there power to avoid any chance of committing a high tackle!

Fining the clubs is a great idea as well.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

The people making excuses for that, or telling people they're overreacting, or patronising them when they say they have fallen out of love with the sport because it things like this, quite frankly need to go away. I'm sorry, these apologists are part of the problem.

I've defended some seemingly bizarre choices the game has made over the years in order to keep some bewildered fans from walking away, but I can't and I won't defend that.

If this is the way the sport is looking to deal with the head issue, it's lost me as a fan. I don't spend my time and money to be left frustrated and angered at the sport for the majority of the spectacle (I can deal with it from a team perspective, but not the sport). I want to see a good, fair and tough competition. I don't like dirty play, but I like risk and reward. These new rules are eliminating the toughness, the fairness and the competitiveness. What we are getting is a lottery.

I never expected much of us as a team this year, yet I've been looking forward to watching the sport as a whole more than I have for a while with the improvement in coverage. I've gone from looking forward to watching every game to considering walking away altogether in the space of 2 weeks, that's how bad this is.

I'm going to watch the WCC tonight as it's different rules. Hopefully there'll be a common sense moment and they go "oh, that's what it should be like, let's change it back." I may give it a couple more weeks after that, but if it's more of the same then I'm done until it changes. Keeping insurance premiums down is pointless if you're reducing your income.

Fix it.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Wellsy4HullFC said:

The people making excuses for that, or telling people they're overreacting, or patronising them when they say they have fallen out of love with the sport because it things like this, quite frankly need to go away. I'm sorry, these apologists are part of the problem.

I've defended some seemingly bizarre choices the game has made over the years in order to keep some bewildered fans from walking away, but I can't and I won't defend that.

If this is the way the sport is looking to deal with the head issue, it's lost me as a fan. I don't spend my time and money to be left frustrated and angered at the sport for the majority of the spectacle (I can deal with it from a team perspective, but not the sport). I want to see a good, fair and tough competition. I don't like dirty play, but I like risk and reward. These new rules are eliminating the toughness, the fairness and the competitiveness. What we are getting is a lottery.

I never expected much of us as a team this year, yet I've been looking forward to watching the sport as a whole more than I have for a while with the improvement in coverage. I've gone from looking forward to watching every game to considering walking away altogether in the space of 2 weeks, that's how bad this is.

I'm going to watch the WCC tonight as it's different rules. Hopefully there'll be a common sense moment and they go "oh, that's what it should be like, let's change it back." I may give it a couple more weeks after that, but if it's more of the same then I'm done until it changes. Keeping insurance premiums down is pointless if you're reducing your income.

Fix it.

It's a bad decision.

That's an overreaction to a bad decision.

[gingerjon]

33 minutes ago, AB90 said:

 If a player new that he would be fined his entire weekly wage if they committed a yellow or red card high tackle offence then rest assured they would do everything they in there power to avoid any chance of committing a high tackle!

Really, cos we've just seen Castleford's fanbase pay a player's fine for him?

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It's a bad decision.

That's an overreaction to a bad decision.

I agree. I expect Bentham was thinking "FFS" rather than thinking the ref team did well. 

I actually think it was a horrible refereeing performance in poor conditions, at odds with how Smith managed the game the night before. 

But, we've seen bad decisions before, and we'll see them again. 

[Faithful1865]

10 hours ago, EastLondonMike said:

Jesus Christ. The ref and video ref have really made their lives very difficult.

They both need standing down. Ruined what was turning into a good contest.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I agree. I expect Bentham was thinking "FFS" rather than thinking the ref team did well. 

I actually think it was a horrible refereeing performance in poor conditions, at odds with how Smith managed the game the night before. 

But, we've seen bad decisions before, and we'll see them again. 

And, catastrophising from one bad decision is a somewhat typical rugby league reaction. On a par with how one dull game means that everything is wrong with everything and no one will love us any more.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

And, catastrophising from one bad decision is a somewhat typical rugby league reaction. On a par with how one dull game means that everything is wrong with everything and no one will love us any more.

We probably should trademark "game's gone". 

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We probably should trademark "game's gone". 

Set up a retro t shirt shop on Redbubble.

[GeordieSaint]

 

[bobbruce]

10 hours ago, jacksy said:

Do we think they will even say it was wrong?

I think that’s the key here they either need to come out and say it was human error. Or explain to everyone the thinking behind it being a red. 

[Old Frightful]

I refrained from commenting last night as I was in something of a state of disbelief. The game was reasonably balanced and my lot, to their utmost credit, were going toe to toe with Wire, which was a great effort looking at the players they had available.

Then up steps Marcus Griffith and Chris Kendall (was he the VR?) with a shambolic over reaction to an otherwise sensible clamp down by the RFL on head shots.

Fa'amanu Brown was sent off for simply not being able to control the momentum of his head in a tackle.

Will the RFL offer any sort of apology for last night's over zealous decision and stand down Griffith and Kendall for next week's games?

I rather doubt it and I await with interest to see what sort of comment is made by the RFL Disciplinary.

 

[JohnM]

Not disputing the absurd and nonsensical nature of the red card, some comments:

1.   I'm assuming that the sanction was applied to the tackler not to the guy who was tackled as it was the tackler who chose to join the tackle already in process.

2. In general, I don't think fines are an effective punishment. I think that losing a player for ten mins, the rest of the game or for several games is more likely to modify player behaviour by pressure from coach and team mates.

3. I can understand the instant negative reaction of some fans but really do think it's over-reaction.

4. Because of the absurd nature of the red card last night, the RFL should now, exceptionally, stand up and be counted by explaining the how and why of that farce.

Edited February 24 by JohnM

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Not disputing the absurd and nonsensical nature of the red card, some comments:

1.   I'm assuming that the sanction was applied to the tackler not to the guy who was tackled as it was the tackler who chose to join the tackle already in process.

2. In general, I don't think fines are an effective punishment. I think that losing a player for ten mins, the rest of the game or for several games is more likely to modify player behaviour by pressure from coach and team mates.

3. I can understand the instant negative reaction of some fans but really do think it's over-reaction.

4. Because of the absurd nature of the red card last night, the RFL should now, exceptionally, stand up and be counted by explaining the how and why of that farce.

On point 4, the main issue for me is that they do need to try and nip it in the bud somewhat. The problem is that this one incident will be held up as a reason why this whole shift in process is rubbish, when that isn't the case imo. I do think they need to acknowledge it properly, I agree. 

I usually agree with Tony Smith on most things, but I did disagree with him somewhat on his point last night that he feels we should have had a bedding in process and allowed people to train with new rules etc. Sayiibg that these players have played certain rules for 20 years and now being asked to change. He's actually wrong on that, as the new rules (armpit) will be next year, so they are doing exactly what he has asked for. What's happening now isn't new rules. You can tackle as you always have been, a high tackle is the same as it always was, you'll just get punished for it at a certain level, and tbh, that has always been the case as long as I've watched the game (35 years). Had they implemented the armpit rule at short notice, his point would be right, but it seems they agree with him and have given notice. 

In reality, most decisions this year have been broadly fine. 

[OriginalMrC]

Worth pointing out the decision last night was a mistake by the ref. There's always been bad decisions by refs and always will be regardless of rules in place. 

[bar red]

The game's doomed, I say doomed. Lol. No it's not, the game will adapt and we will carry on watching it.