Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Mon Jun 03, 2024 6:27 pm  

Zig wrote:

Walters could provide that sort of impact.

At centre? Hes got the turning circle of the QEII at the moment. Far more likely be Eckersley or maybe even Farrell

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Mon Jun 03, 2024 6:38 pm  

bazdev wrote:

At centre? Hes got the turning circle of the QEII at the moment. Far more likely be Eckersley or maybe even Farrell

Think he meant replacing Dupree

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Mon Jun 03, 2024 6:42 pm  

One thing I'd be really angry about is if we let ourselves down again disciplinary wise on Saturday. If we look at both of the competitions we haven't won under Peet, our defeats both came off the back of red cards (one to Shorrocks and one to Bateman). There have also been some others in key games - Ellis x 2, Singleton, Byrne etc.

We all remember what happened in 2014 when the title was there for the taking and we self destruct. If we lose on Saturday let it be because Warrington are the better rugby team, not because we couldn't control our aggression.

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Mon Jun 03, 2024 8:28 pm  

[Gareth] wrote:

Think he meant replacing Dupree

I did mate, sorry for any confusion.

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Tue Jun 04, 2024 6:52 am  

apollosghost wrote:

I just hope he picks Eckersley and doesn’t shoe horn a second rower into the centres

This all day for me. I don't want to see tinkering with the team that pulls multiple players out of position ie Farrell to left centre so Wardle goes to right centre, then if we get an injury to Walters or Nsemba we have to rejig the team again. Eckersley is next man up, the lad has loads of ability, get him in and get on with it.

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:37 am  

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 understand what they are trying to do but it is not always possible to get it right all the time in split second decision making.

For example, say two players who are both 6ft, defender bends his knees, arches his back and turns into an attacker and therefore say drops his tackle height by 2 foot, if the attacker remains straight the defender will make shoulder contact around the waist, if the attacker suddenly falls to his knees as he is brought down from behind also, he drops his height rapidly by 2 foot and therefore the defenders shoulder is around the head of the attacker.

The defender dramatically lowered his tackle height yet makes contact to the head, how can the defender alter his tackle anymore other than aiming for the knees of the attacker or even readjust in a split second to make contact below the head, it is almost impossible.

Now I am not saying AK had adjusted his height to that degree but he obviously adjusted his height as you can see where his shoulder was, he hit the head of a player almost on his knees so his shoulder had dropped, I am saying that we should have enough technology and video evidence available to 'measure' these adjustments and timing of height changes etc. to see if the player could have made any reasonable adjustments before making contact.

As for the term 'forceful contact' im sorry but if you are going to make a tackle on someone running at you full speed who is potentially 14 stone of pure muscle, if you are not going in hard to counter the attacking player then you are a danger to yourself.

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Tue Jun 04, 2024 11:41 am  

'Forceful impact' is a really misleading criteria without taking it into context. A swinging arm with forceful impact is very different from a forceful impact of a planned tackle where the point of contact has suddenly changed from the intended point -as is the case in a player quickly losing height.

The defender is always planning to use a forceful impact in the tackle, that can't change in time he has, if any to make adjustments.

I agree with the above poster it should possible to use technology to assess how much reaction time is available for the defender to make an attempt to change the point and/or force of contact.

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:25 pm  

Warrior Winger wrote:

I understand what they are trying to do but it is not always possible to get it right all the time in split second decision making.

For example, say two players who are both 6ft, defender bends his knees, arches his back and turns into an attacker and therefore say drops his tackle height by 2 foot, if the attacker remains straight the defender will make shoulder contact around the waist, if the attacker suddenly falls to his knees as he is brought down from behind also, he drops his height rapidly by 2 foot and therefore the defenders shoulder is around the head of the attacker.

The defender dramatically lowered his tackle height yet makes contact to the head, how can the defender alter his tackle anymore other than aiming for the knees of the attacker or even readjust in a split second to make contact below the head, it is almost impossible.

Now I am not saying AK had adjusted his height to that degree but he obviously adjusted his height as you can see where his shoulder was, he hit the head of a player almost on his knees so his shoulder had dropped, I am saying that we should have enough technology and video evidence available to 'measure' these adjustments and timing of height changes etc. to see if the player could have made any reasonable adjustments before making contact.

As for the term 'forceful contact' im sorry but if you are going to make a tackle on someone running at you full speed who is potentially 14 stone of pure muscle, if you are not going in hard to counter the attacking player then you are a danger to yourself.

I agree, and this is why I can't stand the MRP as a concept. Like I said, players aren't doing this on purpose so handing out retrospective bans is both pointless and just effects the integrity of the league far too much. Just punish them on the day for getting it wrong and get on with it. If the referee misses it on the day then it's unfortunate but that's sport.

That said they do seem to be handing out far, far less bans over the last couple of months than at any point over the last 3 odd years which is an improvement, but again these 3 match bans are just stupid.

To me, the MRP should only be there for serious acts of foul play that are missed by the ref on the day, or are spotted by the ref but are so serious they require further action. You'd think you could use common sense to see which incidents this refers to. As for the rest, make use of the yellow card. It's a pretty big punishment without completely ruining games like red cards and suspensions and make like football and give out a suspension when you accumulate too many. Obviously you'd still need to give a red for bad ones, but they're used far too liberally now. Go on twitter during/after any single game this year and you've got people saying so and so should have been sent off. Every game. How we got here as a sport I don't know, but it's not good

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:37 pm  

We aren't helping as fans. It's become a feeding frenzy after every single game of fans baying for other team's players to be banned. It's absolutely ridiculous! In answer to your question of how we got here it's because the disciplinary is having too much influence on the season. Here we are in cup final week once again talking about bans and no bans. Same prior to the WCC and no doubt it'll be the same prior to the Grand Final.

Re: Wire part 1 of 2 : Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:21 pm  

MRP missed Drinkwaters high shot and O'Neill gets fined £250 for a push and Musgrave same offence nothing.