JWH sent into retirement by the RFL

[phiggins]

21 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

What do you think about the part where the video ref said he hit him in the neck and not the head when by the laws of the game, these are in fact the same misconduct?

The argument is that if the tackle is not forceful and dangerous, coupled with mitigation, then the guidelines state that there shouldn't have been a penalty. 

Which means that there should be a few less penalties being given. 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

The argument is that if the tackle is not forceful and dangerous, coupled with mitigation, then the guidelines state that there shouldn't have been a penalty. 

Which means that there should be a few less penalties being given. 

I wasn't asking about forceful and dangerous or whether there was any mitigation. I was asking why the video referee differentiated between contact with the neck and contact with the head when they are the same thing by the laws of the game.

[phiggins]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I wasn't asking about forceful and dangerous or whether there was any mitigation. I was asking why the video referee differentiated between contact with the neck and contact with the head when they are the same thing by the laws of the game.

I don't think that's an issue. He's said there's contact and that the contact is minimal.

I do wonder if KR will take a similar approach to the referee's decision being final should they wish to overturn a red card in the future though.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I don't think that's an issue. He's said there's contact and that the contact is minimal.

I do wonder if KR will take a similar approach to the referee's decision being final should they wish to overturn a red card in the future though.

Yes, he said minimal contact with the head. The actual transcript says:

Liam Moore - can you watch that again smithy?
Jack Smith – he’s going to ground, he’s going to ground
Jack Smith - Contact on the neck
Jack Smith - Yeah but there’s minimal contact to the head on this Liam
Liam Moore - Yeah, I’m ok with tackle three mate

The two lines in bold are the key one's - he is not just saying minimal contact to the head but also saying there is contact to the neck. Those are the same thing by the laws of the game.

[g_balls]

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, he said minimal contact with the head. The actual transcript says:

Liam Moore - can you watch that again smithy?
Jack Smith – he’s going to ground, he’s going to ground
Jack Smith - Contact on the neck
Jack Smith - Yeah but there’s minimal contact to the head on this Liam
Liam Moore - Yeah, I’m ok with tackle three mate

The two lines in bold are the key one's - he is not just saying minimal contact to the head but also saying there is contact to the neck. Those are the same thing by the laws of the game.

He also says he's going to ground so clear mitigation. These things happen in split seconds, how can these things be avoided in such a fast game? Again for me, the outcome of an injury influenced the charge which is not right, accidental contacts and injuries are going to happen. Foul play is what needs punishing. And I'm not just saying this as a Rovers fan, I'm talking about the game in general.

Edited October 10, 2025 by g_balls

[Dunbar]

Just now, g_balls said:

He also says he's going to ground so clear mitigation. These things happen in split seconds, how can these things be avoided in such a fast game? Again for me, the outcome of an injury influenced the charge which is not right, accidental contacts and injuries are going to happen. The foul play is what needs punishing.

Once again, I am not talking about the mitigation. I am asking one very simple question.

The video referee distinguished between contact with the head and contact with the neck.

And then later in the appeal minutes, the defence from the player / club states…

His arm is in contact with the shoulder and the neck – despite what is said by the Match Review Panel there is no contact with the head

So, my question is, why are the match officials and the defence of the player differentiating between contact with the head and contact with the neck when the laws of the game clearly state that misconduct occurs ‘when tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent’.

[g_balls]

7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Once again, I am not talking about the mitigation. I am asking one very simple question.

The video referee distinguished between contact with the head and contact with the neck.

And then later in the appeal minutes, the defence from the player / club states…

His arm is in contact with the shoulder and the neck – despite what is said by the Match Review Panel there is no contact with the head

So, my question is, why are the match officials and the defence of the player differentiating between contact with the head and contact with the neck when the laws of the game clearly state that misconduct occurs ‘when tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent’.

I don't know you will have to ask them  It's all so forensic now it's like an episode of CSI.

Edited October 10, 2025 by g_balls

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Once again, I am not talking about the mitigation. I am asking one very simple question.

The video referee distinguished between contact with the head and contact with the neck.

And then later in the appeal minutes, the defence from the player / club states…

His arm is in contact with the shoulder and the neck – despite what is said by the Match Review Panel there is no contact with the head

So, my question is, why are the match officials and the defence of the player differentiating between contact with the head and contact with the neck when the laws of the game clearly state that misconduct occurs ‘when tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent’.

I think he was describing what he was seeing. I dont think he was saying contact with the neck is treated differently to the head, he's just saying contact with the neck, minimal with the head. 

I dont think the ref is really differentiating.

The defence is likely to focus on neck versus head as there is a debating point about hia.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think he was describing what he was seeing. I dont think he was saying contact with the neck is treated differently to the head, he's just saying contact with the neck, minimal with the head. 

I dont think the ref is really differentiating.

The defence is likely to focus on neck versus head as there is a debating point about hia.

That's the whole point, if it was contact with the neck, why wasn't it a penalty?

The transcript implies that the contact with the head was minimal so no penalty, and yet the contact with the neck (which was not described as minimal) is not penalised.

And, as I say, the defence of the player - obviously part of what was accepted by the appeals panel - was that no contact was made with the head, just the neck. But again, that is the same penalty.

[Spidey]

34 minutes ago, g_balls said:

He also says he's going to ground so clear mitigation. These things happen in split seconds, how can these things be avoided in such a fast game? Again for me, the outcome of an injury influenced the charge which is not right, accidental contacts and injuries are going to happen. Foul play is what needs punishing. And I'm not just saying this as a Rovers fan, I'm talking about the game in general.

This wasn't a split second thing he was last man into the tackle, you can easily avoid hitting peoples head/neck with better technique, JWH has chosen over his career not to change his technique

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

What do you think about the part where the video ref said he hit him in the neck and not the head when by the laws of the game, these are in fact the same misconduct?

I think that despite being clearly shown that it was not a foul, on video review, on the assessment of two experienced referrees on the day, and in the assessment of the appeals committee in full possession of both the facts of the incident and the relevant laws of the game, that #wighull fans still somehow can't handle the truth.

Thoughts and prayers 

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I think that despite being clearly shown that it was not a foul, on video review, on the assessment of two experienced referrees on the day, and in the assessment of the appeals committee in full possession of both the facts of the incident and the relevant laws of the game, that #wighull fans still somehow can't handle the truth.

Thoughts and prayers 

Any chance you could answer the question?

[Worzel]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Any chance you could answer the question?

It's not a good faith question. But hey, why not, let's play the game to humour you. 

The referrees and the appeals board understand the rules, their intent and their correct application far better than you or I. In many scenarios contact with the neck is legal. Indeed, it happens throughout the game in case after case of normal contact. The fact that JWH touched the players neck is not inherently foul play. The fact that both player and referree openly refer to JWH touching the players neck, both in defence versus an allegation of foul play and in the act of confirming that something wasn't an example of foul play, reiterates that quite clearly. As if there was any doubt. 

But then you know that already.

[Dunbar]

Just now, Worzel said:

It's not a good faith question. But hey, why not, let's play the game to humour you. 

The referrees and the appeals board understand the rules, their intent and their correct application far better than you or I. In many scenarios contact with the neck is legal. Indeed, it happens throughout the game in case after case of normal contact. The fact that JWH touched the players neck is not inherently foul play. The fact that both player and referree openly refer to JWH touching the players neck, both in defence versus an allegation of foul play and in the act of confirming that something wasn't an example of foul play, reiterates that quite clearly. As if there was any doubt. 

I have already stated that I am not discussing mitigation. The question is being asked in good faith. If a video referee can look at an incident and clearly differentiate between contact with the neck and contact with the head, and if the defence of a player at an appeals hearing does the same, then are we not guilty as a sport of not following our own laws as the laws do not differentiate. Now, that would not be unusual in Rugby League but it is an interesting point of discussion in my view, hence the question.

1 minute ago, Worzel said:

But then you know that already.

By far the most annoying and pompous phrase used on these boards (not just you of course).

[Taffy Tiger]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I have already stated that I am not discussing mitigation. The question is being asked in good faith. If a video referee can look at an incident and clearly differentiate between contact with the neck and contact with the head, and if the defence of a player at an appeals hearing does the same, then are we not guilty as a sport of not following our own laws as the laws do not differentiate. Now, that would not be unusual in Rugby League but it is an interesting point of discussion in my view, hence the question.

By far the most annoying and pompous phrase used on these boards (not just you of course).

But then you know that already.

By far the most annoying and pompous phrase used on these boards (not just you of course).

 

Agree , definitely up their with the best/worst of them , but then you knew that already 

[Dave T]

55 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

That's the whole point, if it was contact with the neck, why wasn't it a penalty?

The transcript implies that the contact with the head was minimal so no penalty, and yet the contact with the neck (which was not described as minimal) is not penalised.

And, as I say, the defence of the player - obviously part of what was accepted by the appeals panel - was that no contact was made with the head, just the neck. But again, that is the same penalty.

Isn't there a nuance around only giving a penalty if its a yellow? So basically unless its serious we carry on with the on field refs decision which was play on?

Tbh, I can't keep up with the approach we take.

Edited October 10, 2025 by Dave T

[Dunbar]

Just now, Dave T said:

Isn't there a nuance around only giving a penalty if its a yellow? So basically unless its serious we carry on with the on field refs decision which was play on?

Tbh, I can't keep up with the approach we take.

I think so, yes.

But again, maybe it is just because of the topic of the thread, I may not be making myself clear enough.

I am not really discussing this tackle or appeal (I thought it wasn't worthy of a ban, maybe a penalty) - more the wider implications of what it has brought up, namely that both ref's and the appeals committee see contact with the head and neck as different when the laws do not. I just thought it was interesting.

[gingerjon]

29 minutes ago, Worzel said:

The referrees and the appeals board understand the rules

I think this is a wildly overly optimistic point of view.

[Just Browny]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think this is a wildly overly optimistic point of view.

They understand the rules; they might have forgotten some of the 'interpretations' which come into, and go out of, vogue every few weeks.

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I think so, yes.

But again, maybe it is just because of the topic of the thread, I may not be making myself clear enough.

I am not really discussing this tackle or appeal (I thought it wasn't worthy of a ban, maybe a penalty) - more the wider implications of what it has brought up, namely that both ref's and the appeals committee see contact with the head and neck as different when the laws do not. I just thought it was interesting.

I dont think refs are seeing it differently - they didn't suggest one was legal and one illegal did they?

[Dave T]

Refs are happy to justify contact with the head. I think the game has lost its way on what it is doing in this space due to weak leadership imo.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I dont think refs are seeing it differently - they didn't suggest one was legal and one illegal did they?

It seemed that way from the transcript "Contact on the neck" and "Yeah but there’s minimal contact to the head on this Liam".

I read that as minimal contact to the head, not enough to justify a penalty, but more contact to the neck. but again, those are the same thing.

[gingerjon]

11 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

They understand the rules; they might have forgotten some of the 'interpretations' which come into, and go out of, vogue every few weeks.

Fair.

[Dave T]

34 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It seemed that way from the transcript "Contact on the neck" and "Yeah but there’s minimal contact to the head on this Liam".

I read that as minimal contact to the head, not enough to justify a penalty, but more contact to the neck. but again, those are the same thing.

Yeah, I didn't read that as that point - I made the assumption that there was further discussion omitted from that?

I do think whilst both illegal, I think discussing where the contact was is important. 

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

By far the most annoying and pompous phrase used on these boards (not just you of course).

Yes, but some times justified and this is one of them. Some people are dancing on the head of a pin around tiny phrases in the minutes, in a desperate search to prove that JWH did commit a foul after all if only someone had correctly listened to a statement or read the rules in a different way. 

The referree saw it clearly and from very close to the incident. The video ref reviewed it. There was no foul. 

The MRP over-stepped the mark trying to prove otherwise, not for the first time, and is not fit for purpose under its current guise.