Disciplinary at it again.

[Harry Stottle]

14 minutes ago, daz39 said:

As with every season, every fan will feel aggrieved at some point due to decisions made against one of their players, nothing we can do except get on with it and accept it.

I think you will find if you look at the posters or emoji answers there is only two Wigan fan that have reacted, the first post and that was the laughing emoji !

Edited April 2 by Harry Stottle

[Dunbar]

18 minutes ago, daz39 said:

As with every season, every fan will feel aggrieved at some point due to decisions made against one of their players, nothing we can do except get on with it and accept it.

 

11 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I do agree broadly with that but not sure that Smith incident is ban worthy at all. I’d have been a bit miffed if it actually had been called up as a penalty but that’s about as harsh as it deserves.

Leeds are appealing it so with our history at the appeals panel it’ll be upgraded to two games

I think it is ok to disagree with the decisions laid down by the panel, they are subjective after all (implying or stating corruption/bent is where the issue is).

Dupree deserves a ban and Smith shouldn’t even be a charge – that’s my take anyway.

[north yorks trinity]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

For reference this is the Cam Smith incident which wasn’t even a penalty in game. It’s a ridiculously soft 1 match ban

 

 

Seriously. Was that considered an "incident"?!!!

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Seriously. Was that considered an "incident"?!!!

Not even a penalty on the night

[north yorks trinity]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Not even a penalty on the night

I'd have been very surprised if it had been. A penalty would have been a very bad decision, but not unprecedented given that the ref is having to make split second decisions in a fast moving game. For the disciplinary panel to study it and see a problem is quite simply staggering.

[Loiner]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

For reference this is the Cam Smith incident which wasn’t even a penalty in game. It’s a ridiculously soft 1 match ban

 

 

Thanks for posting that Chris I had seen it but don't have the wherewithal to re post it.

[LeytherRob]

1 hour ago, daz39 said:

As with every season, every fan will feel aggrieved at some point due to decisions made against one of their players, nothing we can do except get on with it and accept it.

It's people doing precisely the opposite that got the overly zealous rulings on accidental head clashes reduced significantly. 

If everyone just got on and accepted things, we'd still be having hookers milking penalties by intentionally passing into retreating defenders.

[LeytherRob]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

For reference this is the Cam Smith incident which wasn’t even a penalty in game. It’s a ridiculously soft 1 match ban

 

 

If anyone deserves a ban its Danny Richardson for the pathetic dive

[Lowdesert]

14 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

If anyone deserves a ban its Danny Richardson for the pathetic dive

Playing for who?

[JohnM]

This is all so predictable. Yes, discussion and freedom of expression is fine, so don't whine when contrary opinions are expressed: The forum's  barrack- room lawyers are at it again, hence the laughing emoji. Of course the panel is exposing itself to criticism. They do that just by existing. Far better to have the Forum Kangaroo Court decide than the panel.  Trying to prove wrong-doing, foul play or innocence from frame-grabs and the odd bit of video capture is completely ineffective , leading time after time to the wrong conclusion. Due process, due process......

[Lowdesert]

The DP also leaves themselves open to criticism by not clearly publishing their report on what was investigated.  
One instance was, to me, an obvious hip drop on Lacans for Fev v Leigh where 16 (Halton I think).  Lacans was taken off and is still injured I believe.

Lack of transparency and focus on fouls imo

[Dunbar]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

yet seemingly condoning a very deliberate action of intent by the attacking player raising and leading with the elbow going into a tackle

Has Dupree not been completely vindicated by the disciplinary panel then?

[meast]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Moreso in the judiciary panel. Seems they need some sense knocking in them.

I am more than happy for you to go ahead, just make sure someone videos it though  

[StandOffHalf]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

For reference this is the Cam Smith incident which wasn’t even a penalty in game. It’s a ridiculously soft 1 match ban

 

 

Just a penalty. Weird ban!

[StandOffHalf]

Dupree should have been looking at a 2 or 3 game ban. Leading with a dangerously raised arm must be punished IMO.

Bad from the MRP.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

The DP also leaves themselves open to criticism by not clearly publishing their report on what was investigated.  
One instance was, to me, an obvious hip drop on Lacans for Fev v Leigh where 16 (Halton I think).  Lacans was taken off and is still injured I believe.

Lack of transparency and focus on fouls imo

Makes no difference. If the panel said base 10,  2+2 =4 , there would  still be those armchair judges who would disagree .

[M j M]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

This is all so predictable. Yes, discussion and freedom of expression is fine, so don't whine when contrary opinions are expressed: The forum's  barrack- room lawyers are at it again, hence the laughing emoji. Of course the panel is exposing itself to criticism. They do that just by existing. Far better to have the Forum Kangaroo Court decide than the panel.  Trying to prove wrong-doing, foul play or innocence from frame-grabs and the odd bit of video capture is completely ineffective , leading time after time to the wrong conclusion. Due process, due process......

You know this is a discussion forum, right?

[JohnM]

4 minutes ago, M j M said:

You know this is a discussion forum, right?

 I said that in my very first line, which is why I am discussing the situation, agreeing with Konstantin Josef Jireček.

Edited April 2 by JohnM

[phiggins]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I think I said: he was very lucky. He’s been lucky again here. Mostly, he was lucky because he appeared to be aiming to hit the head first and missed. We seem to be putting more on where the point of first contact is over anything else.

I don’t see it as anything more than that. We have always let the ball carrier get away with more than the tackler.

I get that the ball carrier will get away with more than a tackler, but this incident seems to suggest that leading with the forearm or elbow is fine, as long as you don't hit them in the head. And even then it's just a yellow card. That looks like something that needs correcting at some point.

[gingerjon]

42 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I get that the ball carrier will get away with more than a tackler, but this incident seems to suggest that leading with the forearm or elbow is fine, as long as you don't hit them in the head. And even then it's just a yellow card. That looks like something that needs correcting at some point.

I don’t disagree. My only real point is the one that they do seem to be making a lot around where the first point of impact was - and this wasn’t head first.

[Exiled Wiganer]

The Cam Smith one bemuses me. Is it even a penalty? There must be more to it than that. 

Dupree was sin binned at the time, and the first contact was with Lee’s chest. He is entitled to argue that he intended to hit the chest, which is not illegal, and was unfortunate that Lee’s angle of attack (after Lee had injured one of his team mates, incidentally, in a wild tackle the play before) lead to it slipping upwards. Anyone on here can of course argue that he intended to hit Lee in the head, but unless they have similar powers to those women in the tanks in that Tom Cruise sci fi movie then they are simply making things up to suit an opinion.

I also believe the Byrne sending off was very harsh, and not just because it was a Wigan player - Percival’s head was at the same level as the middle of his chest, and he ran straight at him. Indeed, I have printed off the league tables from the BBC, and amended them to show the correct result, a Wigan victory (10-2, with Byrne thundering over at the end). 

Edited April 2 by Exiled Wiganer

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

The Cam Smith one bemuses me. Is it even a penalty? There must be more to it than that. 

Dupree was sin binned at the time, and the first contact was with Lee’s chest. He is entitled to argue that he intended to hit the chest, which is not illegal, and was unfortunate that Lee’s angle of attack (after Lee had injured one of his team mates, incidentally, in a wild tackle the play before) lead to it slipping upwards. Anyone on here can of course argue that he intended to hit Lee in the head, but unless they have similar powers to those women in the tanks in that Tom Cruise sci fi movie then they are simply making things up to suit an opinion.

I also believe the Byrne sending off was very harsh, and not just because it was a Wigan player - Percival’s head was at the same level as the middle of his chest, and he ran straight at him. Indeed, I have printed off the league tables from the BBC, and amended them to show the correct result, a Wigan victory (10-2, with Byrne thundering over at the end). 

On Dupree - I think we are mitigating too much with the first point of contact (not just in this case). Reckless actions can lead to it being dangerous even if secondary, and I think this one falls into that camp.

ON the Byrne one, I agree somewhat. I think in the context of this year red is fine, but I am surprised somewhat that it is graded so harshly - it doesn't instinctively feel like a Grade E, just as Dupree's doesn't feel like no further action imo.

[Dunbar]

9 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I also believe the Byrne sending off was very harsh, and not just because it was a Wigan player - Percival’s head was at the same level as the middle of his chest, and he ran straight at him.

Can you expand a bit more on why you believe that these two are mitigating factors.

[Exiled Wiganer]

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Can you expand a bit more on why you believe that these two are mitigating factors.

I was only making things up to continue the debate in my previous post - and I thought there were enough clues that it wasn’t entirely serious - but happy to make something else up: how can it be your fault if someone runs straight at you at speed with their head at your chest height, particularly if you lift your arms to make a normal tackle? That seems to me to be a million miles away from a Bobbie Goulding at Wembley tackle. As was the referee’s first reaction. Indeed, had Percival not stayed down, the game would have just carried on. Will that do? 

Edited April 2 by Exiled Wiganer

[Exiled Wiganer]

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

On Dupree - I think we are mitigating too much with the first point of contact (not just in this case). Reckless actions can lead to it being dangerous even if secondary, and I think this one falls into that camp.

ON the Byrne one, I agree somewhat. I think in the context of this year red is fine, but I am surprised somewhat that it is graded so harshly - it doesn't instinctively feel like a Grade E, just as Dupree's doesn't feel like no further action imo.

I agree.