|
|
Post by SalfordSlim on Feb 19, 2024 18:03:03 GMT
Mostly match penalties or refer to tribunal but Harry Smith cops for a fine for an incident I think should have been a red card. Anyone would think this sport was bent!! Exactly the response I was expecting!đ And Wiganers will no doubt be claiming it's the right decision.đ¤ |
|
|
|
Post by BDD on Feb 19, 2024 19:33:39 GMT
I must say, I don't think Hooley helped in that tackle involving Smith, though they've now set a precedent for unnatural actions of the tackled player... IF we get consistency then I'm okay with it.
I don't think Sao deserved 3 games.
I can't believe Crowther got a one game ban for his challenge, there was minimal contactâfar less that Brierley's challenge, which was also one game. One last year's measure I think Brierley would have had a fine.
I'm also amazed McIlorum and Watts were referred to tribunal with Pele (who definitely should be). Surely, a couple of games is MORE than enough. I really don't know what defenders are supposed to do. They were both in natural tackling position. In Watts's case, Dupree is going lower to gain leg drive and Watts is well over 6". We're talking a split second to react. If Watts doesn't put his body there, then Dupree bounces through Westerman.
|
|
|
|
Post by BDD on Feb 19, 2024 19:38:41 GMT
Also, what was Seguier banned for? I don't remember him getting a card. The only incident I remember was when a player stayed down injured after he tackled them and the video ref never gave anything. From what I remember, he hit him legally, and possibly bounced up. I can't be 100% but I know it was looked at at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by idrewthehaggis on Feb 19, 2024 19:55:14 GMT
My conspiracy and/or depressing cynical realism feels Smith was âlet offâ more to do with the World Challenge and the nervous inferiority complex of the RFL than being a Piester.
|
|
|
|
Post by chief on Feb 19, 2024 22:29:06 GMT
My conspiracy and/or depressing cynical realism feels Smith was âlet offâ more to do with the World Challenge and the nervous inferiority complex of the RFL than being a Piester. Like I say, bent. RL is, in my opinion, the best spectator sport by far but, it is corrupt. |
|
|
|
Post by idrewthehaggis on Feb 19, 2024 22:47:07 GMT
It was a shocking tackle. Irrespective of whether it was deliberate, accidental or because of poor technique, it clearly merits a ban.
However it seems the RFL via the Panel place the competitiveness of one club over the safety of players in my opinion. Never mind the precedence this decision sets.
|
|
|
|
Post by chief on Feb 20, 2024 9:49:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BDD on Feb 20, 2024 10:12:19 GMT
That Keirghan one looks the worst in those clips. Any player done for a tip tackle this season should take those clips in with them on appeal. www.instagram.com/lukeyates1/ |
|
|
|
Post by russ on Feb 20, 2024 12:30:43 GMT
First of all refs are not bent.
More importantly theres's the psychology of all the participants including fans.
The research on fans' perceptions has illustrated, time and again, that fans don't make good judges of incidents in games nor do they accept decisions, their explanations or even illustrations of why things happened the way they did.
This is part and parcel of being a fan.
Expecting fairness as something that happens is silly enough and when added to constant replays, lack of understanding of either the rules and the disciplinary process it all becomes a bit
like pitchforks and down to the jailhouse to lynch the prisoner.
The truth is everything conspires to make matters worse.
And I think we were all much better off when refs made on the spot decisions and we all had to suck it up and live with "Hesketh scored, it was a try!"
|
|
|
|
Post by twistthemellonman on Feb 20, 2024 12:34:35 GMT
What I donât understand is how international games are going to be ruled? Penrith are already having a meeting today to decide the implementation of the new rules during the world club challenge so what happens during the World Cup or a test series? Do we suddenly drop all the over the top concern to keep the rules in line with the ozzies?
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on Feb 20, 2024 12:47:17 GMT
What I donât understand is how international games are going to be ruled? Penrith are already having a meeting today to decide the implementation of the new rules during the world club challenge so what happens during the World Cup or a test series? Do we suddenly drop all the over the top concern to keep the rules in line with the ozzies? Because the Aussies are so good it tends to go under the radar how often they make it so they have an advantage, even though they don't actually need one.
It's also true to say they love to make out how squeaky clean they are so why would SL's head contact rules worry them?
|
|
|
|
Post by BDD on Feb 20, 2024 13:00:05 GMT
What I donât understand is how international games are going to be ruled? Penrith are already having a meeting today to decide the implementation of the new rules during the world club challenge so what happens during the World Cup or a test series? Do we suddenly drop all the over the top concern to keep the rules in line with the ozzies? Internationals, NRL and SL have their own set of rules too. I'd assume that the WCC should be played under existing international rules. I like the NRL rule change on contested restarts. It could lead to more team attempting short kickoffs, which is one to keep and eye on that we could adopt. As for our head contact rules over here. I think it's gone too far, particularly the bans. Watts and Micky MC face 4-6 week bans for tackles that were not malicious. Pele deserves everything he gets. But, the bans for the other two are OTT. I don't see what else they could really do and it certainly isn't malicious or with intent. Yet, Smith gets nervous ban when he clearly listen a player above the horizontal, which is something you can easily control. Crowther barely makes contact and gets a one game ban too. It's like they thrown a dart in a board to decide on charges and bans. |
|
|
|
Post by idrewthehaggis on Feb 20, 2024 14:36:34 GMT
That there is three sets of rules sums up RL imo.
The game isnât corrupt. Thatâs too strong a word, but itâs hard to reconcile that claim when the MRP lets off Harry Smith, essentially to ensure the RFL âs representative in the WCC - Wigan - is competitive.
For me Itâs more cock up than conspiracy. It reminds of a caricature of a useless, fussy, job worth in a 80s town hall and the smug indifference and bias of a Masonic lodge.
If IMG/RFL really wanted to improve then investing in refereeing/disciplinary should be as much s priority as cyber fandom or having an extra bog roll at Castleford.
|
|
|
|
Post by kreuzbergred on Feb 20, 2024 21:29:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BDD on Feb 21, 2024 0:15:15 GMT
This is ridiculous. I saw this article but can't read it: www.totalrl.com/leigh-leopards-receive-special-dispensation-from-rfl-for-disciplinary-charges-with-owner-derek-beaumont-out-of-the-uk/So, I checked the Leigh website and it states this "Leigh Leopards can confirm that they have requested dispensation from the RFL to deal with the charges brought from their opening fixtures to be dealt with next week, given they have no game at the weekend and their owner, who would deal with the presentation of defences to charges, is currently out of the country. This has been granted by the RFL. No further comments will be made by the club at this stage other than to thank the RFL for agreeing to the clubâs request" So the RFL have allowed Leigh extra time to appeal so that Derek can make the presentation. This seems absolutely ridiculous to me. If the club wants to appeal, they should have to appeal on-time and have an availabile person put forth the argument. |
|
