Sat 12th Oct: SL Grand Final: Wigan Warriors v Hull KR KO 18:00 (Sky)

[The Blues Ox]

5 hours ago, Worzel said:

Peta Hiku has just been given a grade E charge for moving Nsemba’s arm away from his face to check if the lad was OK.

Would rule him out of the test series if found guilty. Seems a pretty appalling way to address the issue to be honest. 

I saw someone on social media asking the question as to why Lachlan Lam did not get charged for lifting Josh Charnley up when he was injured in last weeks game.

[phiggins]

20 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I saw someone on social media asking the question as to why Lachlan Lam did not get charged for lifting Josh Charnley up when he was injured in last weeks game.

Did Lam lift him?

[EagleEyePie]

I thought it was fairly obvious that Hiku would be charged although that doesn't mean I don't have sympathy for him. It's not like some other incidents we've seen where players have tried to lift people up back onto their feet so it's definitely at a lower end of the scale.

Having said that, it's been drilled into players for years now that they shouldn't touch injured players. Lengthy bans have been handed out for the slightest movement of players who are down. The specific offence was created because of the risks involved.

The argument that he was checking to see if he was hurt doesn't really add up. He's down on the ground and not getting up after a heavy impact. Moving his arm isn't going to tell you anything at all or provide any sort of help. These guidelines aren't in place just because of concussion but also neck injuries, where even slight movement can have serious consequences. It's literally not worth the potentially life changing risks and that's why the punishments for the offence seem so harsh.

[StandOffHalf]

2 hours ago, EagleEyePie said:

I thought it was fairly obvious that Hiku would be charged although that doesn't mean I don't have sympathy for him. It's not like some other incidents we've seen where players have tried to lift people up back onto their feet so it's definitely at a lower end of the scale.

Having said that, it's been drilled into players for years now that they shouldn't touch injured players. Lengthy bans have been handed out for the slightest movement of players who are down. The specific offence was created because of the risks involved.

The argument that he was checking to see if he was hurt doesn't really add up. He's down on the ground and not getting up after a heavy impact. Moving his arm isn't going to tell you anything at all or provide any sort of help. These guidelines aren't in place just because of concussion but also neck injuries, where even slight movement can have serious consequences. It's literally not worth the potentially life changing risks and that's why the punishments for the offence seem so harsh.

Moving the arm can reveal whether he's out or whether he has swallowed his tongue.

I don't think this was a touching of an injured player that was meant maliciously.

[Cheadle Leyther]

Now we have renewed the contract with Old Trafford for another 3 years l, are we doomed to more games of the last 2 seasons of one try in the game and the same amount play mainly in the middle half of the pitch. I put this down to the dimensions of the ground.

This game was completely overshadowed by the thrilling Swinton v v Hunslet match on Sunday night, and also it sounds like the Wakefield and Toulouse games as well.

It should be re-named the Grind Final!!

[The Blues Ox]

14 hours ago, phiggins said:

Did Lam lift him?

Yeah.

 

To some extent the game and the media has brought things like this on themselves as the narrative this season has been that anyone who stays down is faking an injury.

[dkw]

I think its obvious he wasnt lifting him maliciously, to get him up, claim play acting etc. it was concern for the player so hopefully that is taken into account. 

 

[phiggins]

46 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Yeah.

 

To some extent the game and the media has brought things like this on themselves as the narrative this season has been that anyone who stays down is faking an injury.

Just seen it back, he grabs Charnley's shirt, but doesn't actually lift him, Charnley's body doesn't move at all. I'd say anyone on social media trying to compare that with Hiku, or even worse, Vaughan last year (which I've seen) are clutching at straws. But that seems to be the norm of RL social media, people trying to compare different incidents to justify the actions of a player weeks, sometimes months ago.

Agree entirely on the narrative about play acting. Too often we've seen someone catch an opponent in the head, the ref miss it, and criticism is reserved for the player on the receiving end. No mention that players like Vaughan (him again!) might be well served to bend their backs a bit when tackling.

[StandOffHalf]

Hiku has fortunately - and correctly IMO - been cleared to play in the Pacific Championships.

The RFL’s press release confirming Hiku’s disciplinary verdict reads:

“Peta Hiku of Hull KR has successfully challenged a Grade E charge of making unnecessary contact with a player who is or may be injured after last Saturday’s Betfred Super League Grand Final against Wigan Warriors. The Independent Operational Rules Tribunal found him not guilty”.

[StandOffHalf]

Thompson, on the other hand, has had his one-match ban upheld. He will miss the first Samoa Test Match.

The RFL confirmed the same with a press release which reads:

“The Tribunal rejected a challenge from Luke Thompson of Wigan Warriors against the grading of a Grade B dangerous Contact (late hit on passer) charge from the Warriors’ victory in the Super League Grand Final''.

 

[dkw]

5 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

Hiku has fortunately - and correctly IMO - been cleared to play in the Pacific Championships.

The RFL’s press release confirming Hiku’s disciplinary verdict reads:

“Peta Hiku of Hull KR has successfully challenged a Grade E charge of making unnecessary contact with a player who is or may be injured after last Saturday’s Betfred Super League Grand Final against Wigan Warriors. The Independent Operational Rules Tribunal found him not guilty”.

TO be fair that shows the system actaully does work. I get why he it was brought up to the disciplinary as it could be misconstrued as a poorly thought out action by Hiku. But being cleared shows the tribunal has actually done its job well in this instance.

[Worzel]

The Hiku appeal minutes are enlightening, and put the match review panel in a pretty bad light. Hudgell accurately pointed out to them that the rules ban "unnecessary contact", rather than all contact, precisely because they were written to allow for a player to be checking on another's welfare in what could be an urgent medical situation. The MRP overreached and charged him with an offence that doesn't exist, attempting to re-write the rules and saying that all contact was banned. Pretty disgraceful stuff really, or at least incompetent.

Interestingly, Matt Peet wrote in support of Hiku, which confirms what I already thought about the man. 

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance/rules-and-regulations/disciplinary/disciplinary-case?case=18927

[Dunbar]

On 15/10/2024 at 12:21, The Blues Ox said:

Yeah.

 

To some extent the game and the media has brought things like this on themselves as the narrative this season has been that anyone who stays down is faking an injury.

I can’t agree with this take.  The incident involving Charnley is a million miles away from those where people are frustrated that a player will hold off from playing a ball until the video ref has taken a look at a possible high shot.

[The Blues Ox]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I can’t agree with this take.  The incident involving Charnley is a million miles away from those where people are frustrated that a player will hold off from playing a ball until the video ref has taken a look at a possible high shot.

I think the Charnley and Nsemba incidents are very similar. Both had a player move the injured player as a concern of welfare and nothing else. There was clearly no intent in either incident and thankfully the disciplinary have come to the same conclusion but it looks like they took some persuading as we have to presume the player would have been found guilty if not for the backing of the opposition coach and his chairman who had obviously examined the rules.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

I think the Charnley and Nsemba incidents are very similar. Both had a player move the injured player as a concern of welfare and nothing else. There was clearly no intent in either incident and thankfully the disciplinary have come to the same conclusion but it looks like they took some persuading as we have to presume the player would have been found guilty if not for the backing of the opposition coach and his chairman who had obviously examined the rules.

Yes, those two may be similar. 

But neither were anywhere close to the incidents where people are saying players are potentially staying down to try and 'win' a penalty.