Sat 1st June: SL: Warrington Wolves v Wigan Warriors KO 15:00 (Sky)

[colin galbraith]

The comments on early drop goals remind me of last year's cup semi against Hull KR. Shorrocks sent off early in second half, Wigan 12-6 up with half an hour to go, had great opportunuties for DG near the Hull KR line but squandered possession instead. After 80 minutes the score was 12-12.

[wilsontown]

I thought the drop goal was a no-brainer. Won field position with that perfectly executed 40/20, time running out and nothing else on. Take the point.

[phiggins]

Seeing some suggestions that Keighran should avoid a ban, because Moylan wasn't banned for his high tackle on Field, when Field slipped immediately before impact. Not sure the two are comparable and would be surprised if he avoids a ban to be honest. Maybe if he has a decent record (not sure what his record is), he'll get a fine.

[Barry Badrinath]

Keighran and dupree get 3 match bans.

 

 

Oooooo

[Barry Badrinath]

What's dupree's record like? 

[Jinking Jimmy]

3 hours ago, phiggins said:

Seeing some suggestions that Keighran should avoid a ban, because Moylan wasn't banned for his high tackle on Field, when Field slipped immediately before impact. Not sure the two are comparable and would be surprised if he avoids a ban to be honest. Maybe if he has a decent record (not sure what his record is), he'll get a fine.

Moylan was sin binned by Jack Smith and did not receive a ban; Keighran sent off by Jack Smith and banned for 3 matches. I love to know how that referee and then the disciplinary panel can view the two tackles so differently.

[phiggins]

15 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Moylan was sin binned by Jack Smith and did not receive a ban; Keighran sent off by Jack Smith and banned for 3 matches. I love to know how that referee and then the disciplinary panel can view the two tackles so differently.

The tackles are different. Whether they are different enough to warrant 0 matches compared to 3 matches is another matter.

Biggest difference is that Field slipped into the tackle against Moylan, and at the very last second at that. The height of the Warrington player drops because of a tackle by another Wigan player, and it happens slightly earlier and not as suddenly. Keighran's is more of a shoulder charge as well. Moylan didn't wrap his arms, but he was front on whereas Keighran leads with the shoulder.

Wigan will appeal, and may even get it reduced, but I'd suggest that using the Moylan sin bin as a precedent wouldn't be the best idea.

[Fly-By-TheWire]

41 minutes ago, Barry Badrinath said:

What's dupree's record like? 

It’s quite relaxing, to be honest. 

[Fly-By-TheWire]

You just know I’ve been patiently waiting for an opportunity to use that

[Damien]

 

 

[Jinking Jimmy]

23 minutes ago, phiggins said:

The tackles are different. Whether they are different enough to warrant 0 matches compared to 3 matches is another matter.

Biggest difference is that Field slipped into the tackle against Moylan, and at the very last second at that. The height of the Warrington player drops because of a tackle by another Wigan player, and it happens slightly earlier and not as suddenly. Keighran's is more of a shoulder charge as well. Moylan didn't wrap his arms, but he was front on whereas Keighran leads with the shoulder.

Wigan will appeal, and may even get it reduced, but I'd suggest that using the Moylan sin bin as a precedent wouldn't be the best idea.

Please explain how this is “front on”.

[phiggins]

20 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Please explain how this is “front on”.

Please explain why you are trying to use a still shot of an incident 2 months ago, as a mitigation for an incident 2 days ago?

As it is, you can see from the still that Moylan's arm isn't tucked in for a shoulder charge, and he's probably even stopped his tackling action when Field slips. Plus Field's slip is a sideways one, if he doesn't slip, it's unlikely to have been an illegal tackle. Keighran leads with the shoulder, and puts force through the tackle with his shoulder. It would've been a penalty if it wasn't high, once he makes contact with the head as well, he's off.

The two challenges are not the same. I'm surprised Keighran got 3 matches, but I'm not surprised that he got a ban.

[Jinking Jimmy]

5 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Please explain why you are trying to use a still shot of an incident 2 months ago, as a mitigation for an incident 2 days ago?

As it is, you can see from the still that Moylan's arm isn't tucked in for a shoulder charge, and he's probably even stopped his tackling action when Field slips. Plus Field's slip is a sideways one, if he doesn't slip, it's unlikely to have been an illegal tackle. Keighran leads with the shoulder, and puts force through the tackle with his shoulder. It would've been a penalty if it wasn't high, once he makes contact with the head as well, he's off.

The two challenges are not the same. I'm surprised Keighran got 3 matches, but I'm not surprised that he got a ban.

I think you brought the subject up.

[phiggins]

Just now, Jinking Jimmy said:

I think you brought the subject up.

I brought up the fact that some Wigan fans on social media are comparing the two incidents, and that one should lead to no ban for the other, you seemed to be in agreement with that theory, sorry if I misunderstood.

[Exiled Wiganer]

On 01/06/2024 at 21:30, StandOffHalf said:

Classy comments post-match from Samuel Burgess about not wanting to see players banned for a final.

I saw that, but I put zero weight on it. We were stitched up and Dupree was wound up, so it was job done. We will get a sense on Saturday as to how many banned Wigan players Warrington need before they can beat us. I suspect 2 won’t be enough but Burgess was right to be delighted to see Tyler loss of control. 

[Padge]

Refs gave what they saw, reported what they saw. Disciplinary acted on what they had in front of them. I'm ok with that.

[EagleEyePie]

5 hours ago, phiggins said:

The tackles are different. Whether they are different enough to warrant 0 matches compared to 3 matches is another matter.

Biggest difference is that Field slipped into the tackle against Moylan, and at the very last second at that. The height of the Warrington player drops because of a tackle by another Wigan player, and it happens slightly earlier and not as suddenly. Keighran's is more of a shoulder charge as well. Moylan didn't wrap his arms, but he was front on whereas Keighran leads with the shoulder.

Wigan will appeal, and may even get it reduced, but I'd suggest that using the Moylan sin bin as a precedent wouldn't be the best idea.

I don't think the argument is that both incidents are exactly the same, but that both incidents show contact occurring through the same mechanism of a player rapidly losing height before contact. Your very first sentence is the exact reason why Wigan will probably use the Moylan tackle as a comparison.

In terms of how long he had to react, it happens within the space of a second, so there really isn't a lot of time to adjust. You say Keighran leads with the shoulder but that's literally how you tackle. If you lead with anything else you're tackling wrong. To tackle properly you make contact shoulder first then wrap. The fact that contact occurs with the shoulder to the head doesn't automatically make it a shoulder charge. Similar to the Moylan tackle, the rapid loss of height removes the players ability to wrap the arms in time.

It's not just the loss of height though. When you see the tackle from the reverse angle Lindop doesn't just lose height but swings down to the right after Keighran has already braced for contact. As a left handed player defending on the right edge, a player running across you to your right is more awkward to defend against. He rotates the hips so he can make the tackle with his left shoulder rather than because he's attempting a shoulder charge. 

That's not to say I don't think he deserves a ban. I don't think there's enough mitigation to go that far. I think there's potentially enough for Wigan to mount an appeal on the basis that it shouldn't be at the most serious grading (D) for unintentional striking with arm/shoulder. 

[JohnM]

6 hours ago, Fly-By-TheWire said:

It’s quite relaxing, to be honest. 

Compared with his granddad's stuff.

https://youtu.be/LUiQuhmHQ8k?si=dpNRRNxFIOTMagIf

[ELBOWSEYE]

12 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I saw that, but I put zero weight on it. We were stitched up and Dupree was wound up, so it was job done. We will get a sense on Saturday as to how many banned Wigan players Warrington need before they can beat us. I suspect 2 won’t be enough but Burgess was right to be delighted to see Tyler loss of control. 

Surprised to see the implications that you were stitched up, Warrington didn't select the Wigan side or make both players tackle or react in that way.

You could turn the second part both ways in saying how many players do Warrington have to rest to let Wigan win (12 just too many).

Saturday is a completely different game having both players available doesn't guarantee a Wigan win and neither does both banned means they lose. Both sides when playing well are well matched blessed with pace and match winners so hopefully the game matches the hype and I go in hope rather than expectation as should you as it an evenly matched and anticipated game.

Edited June 4, 2024 by ELBOWSEYE

[JohnM]

Discipline has been our (Wigan's) problem for a while now and it's up to the coaching staff to read the riot act to the players.   

Overall, the match showed that Burgess's decision to gamble on sacrificing the game through playing his weakened team paid off. Yes, two valuable league points gone, but our two points were won at a cost of injuries ( however minor) to Marshall and co. 

Time was, in soccer at least,  if not in rugby league, that clubs were required to put out their strongest team for every fixture or explain why not. These days, doctors notes are not as easy to come by.

[EagleEyePie]

2 hours ago, JohnM said:

Discipline has been our (Wigan's) problem for a while now and it's up to the coaching staff to read the riot act to the players.   

Overall, the match showed that Burgess's decision to gamble on sacrificing the game through playing his weakened team paid off. Yes, two valuable league points gone, but our two points were won at a cost of injuries ( however minor) to Marshall and co. 

Time was, in soccer at least,  if not in rugby league, that clubs were required to put out their strongest team for every fixture or explain why not. These days, doctors notes are not as easy to come by.

To be fair we won't actually know which approach to last Saturday's game was most successful, or if it actually has any impact at all. It's trying to prove something that can't actually be proven. If Wire win it doesn't necessarily mean it had anything to do with selecting a weakened side. They're perfectly capable of winning back to back games.

The logic from Matt Peet was fairly sound. If you have players that need game time to get up to match fitness or don't play their best following a week off it makes more sense to play them. There was a period last season where we had 3 derby games back to back and that produced some of our best performances of the season, we then won the following game against Wakefield, had a week off, and were absolutely awful against Hull FC. We had a week off later in the year before another game against Hull FC and we were poor in that game too.

It's all hypothetical. We could have rested loads of players at the weekend and then played terribly in the final. We might still play terribly in the final. I just don't think it actually makes much difference.

So we've gained two points but lost 2 players for the final. It's potentially a big advantage come the end of the season and a slight disadvantage for the final. If we're being positive though, we've lost our weakest defender and our 4th best middle. A top team should be more than capable of dealing with that adversity. 

[Barry Badrinath]

12 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

To be fair we won't actually know which approach to last Saturday's game was most successful, or if it actually has any impact at all. It's trying to prove something that can't actually be proven. If Wire win it doesn't necessarily mean it had anything to do with selecting a weakened side. They're perfectly capable of winning back to back games.

The logic from Matt Peet was fairly sound. If you have players that need game time to get up to match fitness or don't play their best following a week off it makes more sense to play them. There was a period last season where we had 3 derby games back to back and that produced some of our best performances of the season, we then won the following game against Wakefield, had a week off, and were absolutely awful against Hull FC. We had a week off later in the year before another game against Hull FC and we were poor in that game too.

It's all hypothetical. We could have rested loads of players at the weekend and then played terribly in the final. We might still play terribly in the final. I just don't think it actually makes much difference.

So we've gained two points but lost 2 players for the final. It's potentially a big advantage come the end of the season and a slight disadvantage for the final. If we're being positive though, we've lost our weakest defender and our 4th best middle. A top team should be more than capable of dealing with that adversity. 

i think as well, the game against leigh could be pivotal as well, no idea where you're gonna shoehorn that one into the fixture list, 

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, Barry Badrinath said:

i think as well, the game against leigh could be pivotal as well, no idea where you're gonna shoehorn that one into the fixture list, 

Logically, they would play the game on the Tuesday after the England international (it's been said they will keep the weekend free), then the two teams are scheduled to play each other that Friday, so would move that to Sunday.

Still bemused by the fact that the WCC isn't factored into the fixture list.

[JohnM]

2 hours ago, EagleEyePie said:

To be fair we won't actually know which approach to last Saturday's game was most successful, or if it actually has any impact at all. It's trying to prove something that can't actually be proven. If Wire win it doesn't necessarily mean it had anything to do with selecting a weakened side. They're perfectly capable of winning back to back games.

The logic from Matt Peet was fairly sound. If you have players that need game time to get up to match fitness or don't play their best following a week off it makes more sense to play them. There was a period last season where we had 3 derby games back to back and that produced some of our best performances of the season, we then won the following game against Wakefield, had a week off, and were absolutely awful against Hull FC. We had a week off later in the year before another game against Hull FC and we were poor in that game too.

It's all hypothetical. We could have rested loads of players at the weekend and then played terribly in the final. We might still play terribly in the final. I just don't think it actually makes much difference.

So we've gained two points but lost 2 players for the final. It's potentially a big advantage come the end of the season and a slight disadvantage for the final. If we're being positive though, we've lost our weakest defender and our 4th best middle. A top team should be more than capable of dealing with that adversity. 

To be fair.

I don't come on here to be fair.

[dkw]

17 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

 We were stitched up and Dupree was wound up, so it was job done. 

How were you stitched up?