Head high tackles / grapple tackles : Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:23 pm  

Usual disclaimer that I don't think this in any way influenced the result, we were just out-played by a better side.

But, why did Saints not have a man binned for the repeated high shots and grapples? Particularly as one man, Wilkin, put in a pretty bad shot, got formally warned and then was involved himself again in one that the TJ ran on for? Eastmond's on Jeffries also looked pretty bad in its own right to me but there were at least 4 penalties given for playing the head and no card action at all.

Last night in the Warrington match there was another pretty bad one in on King that only warranted a penalty and I can't remember the last card I've seen for a high shot.

If it only results in a penalty then we'll never see the end of dangerous play like this.

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:32 pm  

Indeed, the tackle by Eastmond surely should have resulted in red. It was a swinging arm that connected, what else do you have to do to be shown a red card these days?

As for Wilkin, we already knew all about him so his series of head high tackles came as no surprise. And to think Saints still boo Newton who has cleaned up his act now. Wilkin is probably one of the worst offenders in SL for head shots.

And before any Saints fans call it sour grapes, I thought they were well worth their win today.

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:40 pm  

Some of the tackles out there were shocking today. That's the worse disciplined team we have seen at Odsal this season. Or best disciplined if thats what they are coached to do. I suppose if they get away with it then why not. Wilkin is dirty. I'm not sure he knows how to tackle below the neck.
I couldn't see Eastmonds. I'm not sure it was even on report was it?

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:06 pm  

debaser wrote:

Some of the tackles out there were shocking today. That's the worse disciplined team we have seen at Odsal this season. Or best disciplined if thats what they are coached to do. I suppose if they get away with it then why not. Wilkin is dirty. I'm not sure he knows how to tackle below the neck.
I couldn't see Eastmonds. I'm not sure it was even on report was it?

None of them were put on report.

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:11 pm  

redeverready wrote:

None of them were put on report.

That's ridiculous. Eastmonds was basically a full on crack to BJ.

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:14 pm  

Ewwenorfolk wrote:

That's ridiculous. Eastmonds was basically a full on crack to BJ.

Think he will probably get called in. Can they do that if its not on report?

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:18 pm  

debaser wrote:

Think he will probably get called in. Can they do that if its not on report?

I'm not sure, but to me it sould have definitely been sin-bin at least.

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:22 pm  

Ewwenorfolk wrote:

I'm not sure, but to me it sould have definitely been sin-bin at least.

If Wilkin had been sin-binned for the first one then it is less likely that the others would have happened. That's part of the point of the sin bin but it just feels like refs are suddenly reluctant to use it. I don't understand.

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:23 pm  

Block5Bull wrote:

If Wilkin had been sin-binned for the first one then it is less likely that the others would have happened. That's part of the point of the sin bin but it just feels like refs are suddenly reluctant to use it. I don't understand.

Coz its Saints?

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:36 pm  

Ewwenorfolk wrote:

I'm not sure, but to me it sould have definitely been sin-bin at least.

Players don't get sin-binned for swinging arms to the chest, or sent off/banned.