Re: Wigan : Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:06 am  

LifeLongHKRFan wrote:

TBF to Child with regards to the red card. Should a player be allowed to stay on the pitch if the player he has injured with a high tackle has to sit out of the rest of the game?

You can't really go there, as then depending on personnel involved in an incident, some coaches may deem some players to be nfit to carry on to get someone sent off. Anyway they have 15 minutes. What do you suggest, get sent off 15 mins later if a player "can't resume"?

I think it's fine as it is, the ref can and rightly does take the outcome of the incident into account, sure Child couldn't "know" how bad Charnley was but made the same judgment as all other speccies, aided no doubt by his earpiece, and the result was the same as what you suggest.

Look at it this way, Ah Van does exactly the same thing, but marginally misses contact, he doesn't get sent off.

Re: Wigan : Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:27 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You can't really go there, as then depending on personnel involved in an incident, some coaches may deem some players to be nfit to carry on to get someone sent off. Anyway they have 15 minutes. What do you suggest, get sent off 15 mins later if a player "can't resume"?

I think it's fine as it is, the ref can and rightly does take the outcome of the incident into account, sure Child couldn't "know" how bad Charnley was but made the same judgment as all other speccies, aided no doubt by his earpiece, and the result was the same as what you suggest.

Look at it this way, Ah Van does exactly the same thing, but marginally misses contact, he doesn't get sent off.

But looking at the incident retrospectively, The decision was correct because Charnley could play no further part in the game.

Look at it this way. If Sutton's challenge on Brown was high, should he be sent off? He would literally have just taken out Widnes main play maker for the rest of the game.

Re: Wigan : Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:04 pm  

Poor performance by Wigan, in more than one respect. Nothing less than expected though these days.

Re: Wigan : Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:17 pm  

LifeLongHKRFan wrote:

But looking at the incident retrospectively, The decision was correct because Charnley could play no further part in the game.

The decision was correct (just about, on balance) because Ah Van recklessly swung his arm and made contact with the head of another player. The consequences for Charnley should have little or no bearing on the punishment for Ah Van.

I've seen Rob Burrow cop plenty of head shots that he's just bounced up from. If you start encouraging people to stay down because it'll influence how the referee punishes the offender, you're heading down football's slippery slope.

What's more disappointing is that despite three on-field officials and a VR, Matty Smith wasn't given a red for lashing out at another player with the boot. Indeed it appeared that up until Robert Hicks decided to get involved at the restart, the rest of the officials were quite happy to turn a blind eye to the offence.

Re: Wigan : Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:52 pm  

Why wasn't Farrel carded for his late high shot on the kicker

Not even penalised

[Pemps]

Re: Wigan : Fri Feb 06, 2015 2:39 pm  

Code13 wrote:

Why wasn't Farrel carded for his late high shot on the kicker

Not even penalised

I think you've answered your own question there.

Re: Wigan : Fri Feb 06, 2015 3:36 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

The decision was correct (just about, on balance) because Ah Van recklessly swung his arm and made contact with the head of another player. The consequences for Charnley should have little or no bearing on the punishment for Ah Van.

But they should. As I pointed out elsewhere, if Paddy had done exactly the same motion but missed the head, he wouldn't have been sent off. And it's not just the RL disciplinary. Any court will always take into account the consequences for the victim, if Paddy did that to a stranger in the street, it would be an assault, if the stranger had an eggshell skull and died it would be manslaughter. Same act, wildly different consequences. And that's as it should be.

Andy Gilder wrote:

I've seen Rob Burrow cop plenty of head shots that he's just bounced up from. If you start encouraging people to stay down because it'll influence how the referee punishes the offender, you're heading down football's slippery slope.

Well yes, I saw Paul Deacon take more, but absolutely nobody is advocating that. The ref is experienced and I've watched a bit of rugby in my time, and it was plainly obvious that Charnley wasn't doing a performance.

Andy Gilder wrote:

What's more disappointing is that despite three on-field officials and a VR, Matty Smith wasn't given a red for lashing out at another player with the boot. Indeed it appeared that up until Robert Hicks decided to get involved at the restart, the rest of the officials were quite happy to turn a blind eye to the offence.

How it "appeared" isn't worth a comment as I don't know what was said or by whom. If Smith had been sent off he couldn't have complained, he kicked out at the player but "lashing out" is exaggerating it. Personally i would have sent him off as I don't want to see that on a rugby field even half-hearted, but I don't go so far as to say a yellow card was unjustifiable so i'm not bagging the ref for it, especially as I don't know just how much teh officials saw. But personally I hope the disciplinary is able to look at it and he cops a match and a fine, as it was ridiculous, and wants nipping in his petulant bud. I suppose if they can depends on what he was carded for, exactly.

Re: Wigan : Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:44 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

But they should. As I pointed out elsewhere, if Paddy had done exactly the same motion but missed the head, he wouldn't have been sent off. And it's not just the RL disciplinary. Any court will always take into account the consequences for the victim, if Paddy did that to a stranger in the street, it would be an assault, if the stranger had an eggshell skull and died it would be manslaughter. Same act, wildly different consequences. And that's as it should be.

It should be - and I believe is - part of the sentencing guidelines. I don't think it should form part of the on field decision making of a referee though. It's the act that needs to be dealt with, not the consequences which are to a certain extent subject to random chance anyway. Two virtually identical high tackles on the same player can have very different short term effects. If a player is high and reckless - which IMO Ah Van was - then it's a red, whether the recipient comes up with a cut, a concussion or without a scratch.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I suppose if they can depends on what he was carded for, exactly.

IIRC the ridiculous rule that if a referee deals with it you can't use video which the FA apply isn't yet part of rugby league, and the match review panel can go back and retrospectively apply a punishment?

Re: Wigan : Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:48 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

It should be - and I believe is - part of the sentencing guidelines. I don't think it should form part of the on field decision making of a referee though. It's the act that needs to be dealt with, not the consequences which are to a certain extent subject to random chance anyway. Two virtually identical high tackles on the same player can have very different short term effects. If a player is high and reckless - which IMO Ah Van was - then it's a red, whether the recipient comes up with a cut, a concussion or without a scratch.

Can't work, though. As I've said, Ah van does that exact same thing but misses, he would almost never be sent off. That's random chance - but that's how it is.

Andy Gilder wrote:

IIRC the ridiculous rule that if a referee deals with it you can't use video which the FA apply isn't yet part of rugby league, and the match review panel can go back and retrospectively apply a punishment?

Certainly hope so.

Re: Wigan : Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:49 pm  

of course they can retrospectively deal with it, as can be seen by previous panel outcomes (Flower was dealt with by the ref and then the RFL panel dished out a 6 month ban). Sending off sufficient in Ah Vans case, Matty to get a ban