Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Mon Jun 03, 2024 2:39 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

We can’t go down the Saints conspiracy route but what I will say is that I don’t think we kick up any sort of fuss over decisions and it leaves us a bit of a sitting duck. I think both are heavy handed by at least a game but there you go. I’ve said previously I’m happy when any players avoid a ban but you can’t help but look at the Moylan, Hiku and Tai challenges and wonder what this big differences are to warrant such massively different outcomes.

I've no idea what the MRP are smoking this week. How those guys have 3 game bans and yet Sims and Maria weren't even cited for a high shoulder charge and high swinging arm respectively is crazy to me. Its just a complete lottery. They just need to abolish them completely I think, or sack everyone and bring in a completely new team.

I could see Dupree getting a game because it's a grubby bit of play that we don't want to see, but 3 games is madness. He's hardly at risk of giving him a concussion, there was a complete lack of force applied.

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Mon Jun 03, 2024 2:46 pm  

Warrior Winger wrote:

For me, and I do have cherry and white specs, but I don’t generally use them, the AK tackle wasn’t as bad as I think everyone is making out, especially when you look at generally how you would go into a tackle.
Firstly, players will turn their shoulder into an oncoming player it is a natural action based on making a tackle, anyone who has played the game will tell you this, if you don’t turn into the oncoming player you will no doubt make contact with the player full front on and either get bowled over or at the very least have your upper body spun around on impact.
Secondly the wrapping of the arms, you only start to wrap your arms once your shoulder makes the contact, any earlier and you are going to get your arm bumped off and more than likely not make an effective tackle, so to say he didn’t attempt to wrap his arms is wrong in my opinion, he never got the opportunity to wrap an arm as the player dropped the last second, if he had of followed through with the arm he would have caught him further around the head.
Now I would say the same for any player from any team in this situation, these incidents happen in milliseconds not even seconds, to adjust your gate and body in that time is very difficult, these kinds of incidents will occur what we should be doing is using the fact that all games are televised and technology to measure just how quick a players height adjusts and how quick a defending player can adjust to see if there was anything he could have done to avoid the incident

Well the thing is they are trying to get players to drop their tackle height, so that there's much less margin for error and it's less likely to hit the head even if they fall. It's no good saying there's nothing he can do, because there absolutely is. He can tackle lower in the first instance. It makes sense as a goal from the RFL, the problem is the MRP is a complete liability and a lottery and isn't working. I understand they're trying to "deter" players from tackling high, but the system of handing out big bans is just stupid. Players aren't doing it on purpose, so deterrence isn't what's needed. You make it against the rules and punishable by a penalty/yellow card/red card on the day and players will stop doing it, but it's going to take time for them to adjust to not do something they've been trained to do for 10 years. The retrospective bans aren't needed at all, they're just ruining the game

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Mon Jun 03, 2024 3:25 pm  

The Reaper wrote:

Well the thing is they are trying to get players to drop their tackle height, so that there's much less margin for error and it's less likely to hit the head even if they fall. It's no good saying there's nothing he can do, because there absolutely is. He can tackle lower in the first instance. It makes sense as a goal from the RFL, the problem is the MRP is a complete liability and a lottery and isn't working. I understand they're trying to "deter" players from tackling high, but the system of handing out big bans is just stupid. Players aren't doing it on purpose, so deterrence isn't what's needed. You make it against the rules and punishable by a penalty/yellow card/red card on the day and players will stop doing it, but it's going to take time for them to adjust to not do something they've been trained to do for 10 years. The retrospective bans aren't needed at all, they're just ruining the game

Whilst I understand your points, this wasn't a high tackle. Tackle height in this instance isn't a factor. The Wire player falls into Keighran's shoulder and is very low when contact is made. In fact if you look where his hands are at the moment of impact they would be around the waist of a player who wasn't falling.

I'm not saying that this wasn't a ban in the current system but I think it's equally fair to hold the opinion that there was little that Keighran could legitimately do to stop this happening. Put it this way; I'd say that the vast majority of front on tackles would have the defending player with a similar body position to Keighran's. The only difference being that usually the attacking player isn't falling as quickly as in this example.

The disciplinary is the problem here. An almost identical tackle by Moylan on Field recently had the falling as mitigation and no ban was given. Fast forward a few weeks and the falling is no longer mitigation. In addition how many times recently have you heard the on field ref explain a yellow by saying it would have been a red as it was forceful and direct contact to the head but the fact that the player was falling means that it's a yellow. Then the same factors at play in this instance is a direct red and a 3 game ban including a final! There's just no consistency.

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Mon Jun 03, 2024 3:42 pm  

Fantastic Mr Catpiss wrote:

total underdogs guy, going up against the current league champions and world club champions, we dont stand a chance.

I thought you were better than that but it is good that you have recognised Wigan as the best. You have listed two achievements that only the very best ascend too.

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Mon Jun 03, 2024 3:46 pm  

It’s unfortunate that we will be short of two of our starting 17 but I don’t have any concerns. We have plenty of cover in the forwards and either Walters or Eckersley can take Keighran’s place. The only issue I have though now is the goalkicking. I think this will be a close game and every point will be vital.

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Mon Jun 03, 2024 3:47 pm  

jonh wrote:

Keighran been outstanding in defence but his attitude and aggression in that department have cost him in a number of games over the course of his career.

Eckersley is as good a replacement going though and whilst Keighran has been getting better in attack I think ZE is potentially an upgrade if we get in the front foot.

Dupree is a loss because it probably changes the way we play. Dupree has been used as impact along with Mago I’m not sure we have another forward waiting in the background that had the same impact that Dupree does.

Walters could provide that sort of impact.

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Mon Jun 03, 2024 3:48 pm  

Fantastic Mr Catpiss wrote:

i wouldn't worry too much, we've struggled with mago since you signed him.

He’s due a big game, he has been quiet the last few weeks.

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Mon Jun 03, 2024 3:53 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

I think it's hilarious that oppo fans continually jump to the "won't get banned, the RFL don't ban Wigan players" type posts. Byrne"s 4 games from Good Friday was almost universally condemned as harsh. We had Ellis and Walters banned for similar offences to that of Drinkwater who doesn't even get cited and then 3 matches each, including a final, for these two. Yet the Hiku assault on Field the other week goes completely unpunished with the most ludicrous explanation ever, the Moylan tackle (almost identical to Keighran's) only gets a yellow and yesterday not a single Wire player is even cited.

I'm expecting some backtracking and apologies from all the conspiracy theorists who were quick to post following the game on Saturday, after which I'm off to watch the pig division of the Red Arrows on their annual fly past

To be honest I want Drinkwater playing my worry was that Ratchford would be promoted and he is a far better player and goal kicker. Although I would add that Drinkwater is a better tactical kicker. Hopefully, Jnr and Sam will give him nightmares on Saturday.

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Mon Jun 03, 2024 4:02 pm  

The Reaper wrote:

Well the thing is they are trying to get players to drop their tackle height, so that there's much less margin for error and it's less likely to hit the head even if they fall. It's no good saying there's nothing he can do, because there absolutely is. He can tackle lower in the first instance. It makes sense as a goal from the RFL, the problem is the MRP is a complete liability and a lottery and isn't working. I understand they're trying to "deter" players from tackling high, but the system of handing out big bans is just stupid. Players aren't doing it on purpose, so deterrence isn't what's needed. You make it against the rules and punishable by a penalty/yellow card/red card on the day and players will stop doing it, but it's going to take time for them to adjust to not do something they've been trained to do for 10 years. The retrospective bans aren't needed at all, they're just ruining the game

I agree with most of that all that I would add is that there is a whole world of difference between hitting a player high when he is stood upright compared to when he is falling.

Regarding the final, we all know that the rules are going to be applied far more sparingly.

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Mon Jun 03, 2024 5:30 pm  

nikos wrote:

unbelievable, he's only been at Wire two minutes and he's already turned into a cheat

Where is there any mention of cheating?