Fri 6th Sept: SL: Wigan Warriors v Hull KR KO 20:00 (Sky)

[Dave T]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Or, to ensure integrity of the game and the process.

And that's fine, but let's not make out it's based on medical needs and player welfare. This whole topic is only coming up because people think players are cheating.

And I will say, I wouldn't have too much of an issue if the Rugby process was that the VR isn't used for this and it was left to the ref (I think there is a valid point that refs hide behind the VR) and we deal with it in disciplinary, but I still think we'd see players hurt on field, just as we did when I started watching in the 1980s.

[Damien]

8 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I would hate to be the one to mention to Peters that they only won the semi final last year because Shorrocks was sent off for a tackle no worse than the one their man got 10 minutes for, and that he does in fact coach Mikey Lewis, and so the whole “I coach my players to be lovely lovelies” line doesn’t work…

That sprung to my mind too.

[Dunbar]

Just now, bobbruce said:

Players can get slight head contact and land on their shoulder or twist their knee on the way down. It’s not always the head contact injury they are staying down for. It’s why we have medical professionals looking at them. We should leave it for them to assess the injury. I don’t particularly like the on field review but unfortunately anyway the I can think of to stop it happening comes with side issues that I think is even worse for the game. 

I'm not sure why people are bringing ankles and twisted knees into the conversation when I am talking about a player unable to regain his feet and continue playing after direct contact to the head.

[ELBOWSEYE]

10 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

Just found reference to this online “Australian researchers reported rugby shoulder tackles had an average force of 1997 newtons (1997N), the equivalent of 206kg.”

Average! Imagine being smacked in the head with 206kg That’s 32 stone. 

Not sure many would spring to their feet after that. 
 

 

Yet for over a century they get up far more than stay down, people aren't saying get up if you cannot but players who have got up when they can are staying down to have a player carded.

[bobbruce]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I'm not sure why people are bringing ankles and twisted knees into the conversation when I am talking about a player unable to regain his feet and continue playing after direct contact to the head.

You are saying any player staying down after head contact should go for a HIA. All I’m saying is even after head contact sometimes the head injury isn’t what they are staying down for. 

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

And that's fine, but let's not make out it's based on medical needs and player welfare. This whole topic is only coming up because people think players are cheating.

And I will say, I wouldn't have too much of an issue if the Rugby process was that the VR isn't used for this and it was left to the ref (I think there is a valid point that refs hide behind the VR) and we deal with it in disciplinary, but I still think we'd see players hurt on field, just as we did when I started watching in the 1980s.

Yes, I am being somewhat facetious with my points that a player has to go for a HIA if they stay down. Because I don't think all of them do need a HIA.  But that's because I think they could have played the ball and the reason they didn't was to wait for a penalty to be given.

But I do believe that if a player cannot continue after hit to head, and they cannot get up to play the ball then they should go for a HIA... because let's err on side of caution when it comes to head injury and player welfare.  And then it doesn't matter if it genuine or a bit of gamesmanship, all players will be protected. 

[bobbruce]

3 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Yet for over a century they get up far more than stay down, people aren't saying get up if you cannot but players who have got up when they can are staying down to have a player carded.

They still get up far more than they stay down. I get people are frustrated with this but I don’t think the answer is to target the fouled player/s. We should just go back to not reviewing these incidents take the ball off the player and play on. The game a whole then needs to sit the officials down and find out why they a missing so many high tackles. 

[bobbruce]

1 minute ago, bobbruce said:

They still get up far more than they stay down. I get people are frustrated with this but I don’t think the answer is to target the fouled player/s. We should just go back to not reviewing these incidents take the ball off the player and play on. The game a whole then needs to sit the officials down and find out why they a missing so many high tackles. 

Just to add if these incidents are missed in a game and not penalised that should be reflected at the disciplinary. Maybe what would normally be a one game ban becomes a two game ban due to it not being penalised at the time. 

[Damien]

55 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think it follows that a player who is hurt in a tackle automatically has to go off. For as long as we've watched the game players have been hurt, needed a minute and then carried on. Even Sam Burgess. I made the point last time we discussed it that there is such a phenomenon as the magic sponge. I also made the point that squash is my sport I play and I've absolutely gone down on my ankle hurt, needed a minute and then played on fine. Surely you've witnessed/experienced people recover from being hurt?

The Miski one is quite an interesting point, because he wasn't hit high, so why would he stay down for a review? He wouldn't get a penalty for it. So maybe he was just hurt. But people are accusing him of cheating.

The logic isn't making sense here.

If certain posters want to accuse Wigan of systematic cheating then the Miski one is such a poor example for the reasons you and others state.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, I am being somewhat facetious with my points that a player has to go for a HIA if they stay down. Because I don't think all of them do need a HIA.  But that's because I think they could have played the ball and the reason they didn't was to wait for a penalty to be given.

But I do believe that if a player cannot continue after hit to head, and they cannot get up to play the ball then they should go for a HIA... because let's err on side of caution when it comes to head injury and player welfare.  And then it doesn't matter if it genuine or a bit of gamesmanship, all players will be protected. 

Happy to agree to disagree as per previous discussions. My preference is that we let experts decide processes and protocol on player safety and not commentators and fans.

Whilst the VR interaction doesn't bother me personally, I think that is fair debate for fans and commentators as that isn't really player welfare, that's disciplinary.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

If certain posters want to accuse Wigan of systematic cheating then the Miski one is such a poor example for the reasons you and others state.

There are bad examples every week.

And I'd love to join in a pile on against Wigan

Edited September 7, 2024 by Dave T

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

They still get up far more than they stay down. I get people are frustrated with this but I don’t think the answer is to target the fouled player/s. We should just go back to not reviewing these incidents take the ball off the player and play on. The game a whole then needs to sit the officials down and find out why they a missing so many high tackles. 

I think there is a fair shout that refs are relying on this process somewhat. Knowing that bad high tackles hurt players and this will allow the VR to tell them what to do.

[JohnM]

12 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Yet for over a century they get up far more than stay down, people aren't saying get up if you cannot but players who have got up when they can are staying down to have a player carded.

There is no evidence for that accusation of cheating, though. Who are we, mere spectators, to decide how injured players should behave.

[Dunbar]

Just now, JohnM said:

There is no evidence for that accusation of cheating, though. Who are we, mere spectators, to decide how injured players should behave.

Players are telling us this is happening, both current and past.  Are you saying you don't believe them?

[Worzel]

2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

There is no evidence for that accusation of cheating, though. Who are we, mere spectators, to decide how injured players should behave.

Players and coaches are being pretty vocal about it, so I’m not sure it’s unreasonable for supporters to be discussing it too. 

[Dunbar]

Anyway, on the actual game.

I thought it was excellent.  KR showed why they are right up there this year and a real shout for tye Grand Final. Their completion rate while still being an attack focused team shows real quality.

The two yellow cards were obviously impactful but Wigan were pretty resilient and in end they managed to find a win.

I don't think we can underestimate the difference in game play when we get into October at Old Trafford with the weather and pitch a real factor.  Teams like Wigan excel in those conditions. 

I do want KR to be at Old Trafford and I wouldn't mind a replay of last night at all.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

What time did the Hull KR fans get back last night?

[ATLANTISMAN]

Watched on the new streaming channel here in Spain.

Excellent quality  

[JohnM]

31 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Players and coaches are being pretty vocal about it, so I’m not sure it’s unreasonable for supporters to be discussing it too. 

Of course, we ARE discussing it. Coaches are well known for their impartiality and accuracy, always wanting to be fair to both sides.

[Padge]

12 hours ago, Futtocks said:

I thought I heard the stadium PA say it was Nsemba, but it must have been a mention of his name for something else.

Match sponsors selection, not Sky (Bet Fred) selection.

[ELBOWSEYE]

46 minutes ago, JohnM said:

There is no evidence for that accusation of cheating, though. Who are we, mere spectators, to decide how injured players should behave.

Absolute rubbish, no other words need to be used. I do wonder if posters on here have ever played adult RL at any level. RL was always described as a team version of boxing, were players would try to show the hit didn't hurt them even if it did. You would see (even in amateurs) players hit really hard (fair or otherwise) and players would get up and smile just to say is that your best shot. No more, let's not ever call soccer players for play acting.

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Absolute rubbish, no other words need to be used. I do wonder if posters on here have ever played adult RL at any level. RL was always described as a team version of boxing, were players would try to show the hit didn't hurt them even if it did. You would see (even in amateurs) players hit really hard (fair or otherwise) and players would get up and smile just to say is that your best shot. No more, let's not ever call soccer players for play acting.

I agree.  We can talk around this forever but at its heart it is players staying on the ground, refusing to play the ball, until they get a penalty.  I don't think that is how Rugby League should be played.

Yes, not all, but some.  And enough for it to be an issue called out by the players themselves.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

13 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Gonna say it now before I turn it all off, but congratulations Rovers on the LLS. Fantastic achievement and well deserved.

Well... My plan to jinx the result worked it seems!

[Just Browny]

7 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Well... My plan to jinx the result worked it seems!

Sadly, walking up and down your living room singing 'Marching on Together' didn't have the same effect.

[East Hull Robins]

1 hour ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

What time did the Hull KR fans get back last night?

Strolled in about half 2, was a long journey home ended up going A1 Doncaster to Scunthorpe Humber bridge way due to closures close to Hull.

 

same again Friday for Leigh!