Re: 1 match ban : Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:31 am  

Coventry Warrior! wrote:

There's no need for cowardly acts in RL whether they cause serious damage or not.

Indeed, they should come down hard on late hits to kickers and tryscorers while there at it.

The list is endless

Good luck over at KR

Time to move on

Re: 1 match ban : Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:38 am  

Gahan wrote:

Indeed, they should come down hard on late hits to kickers and tryscorers while there at it.

The list is endless

Good luck over at KR

Time to move on

I agree we should all move on, the ban is there and its 3 games. Mason will play no further part in Hudds season. Well done on making the playoffs and well done to us for winning the league. See you next year!

Re: 1 match ban : Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:20 am  

cadoo wrote:

:)

The ban aside, the one positive that has come from all this is that Fielden looks hungry. He was excellent on Sunday and looked like the 'Stuart Fielden' we all remember ripping sides apart at Bradford. He's brought back that killer offload when he spins in the tackle. Most importantly for me, he looks aggressive, tough and isn't afraid to chuck his weight about. You can see the intensity lift in his game. Fantastic for Wigan & for England RL. Anyone would be a fool to deny that Fielden on his day is one of the best props in the country.

Fielden seems to need a bit of niggle to get him fired up and he did a tremendous shift on Sunday. Other than his enfortced rest I think he did 70 minutes (although no doubt someone will correct me) and is getting back to something close the to player we brought in.

That said I'm not sure he could do a 70 min shift every week and the circumstances of Sunday with him being fired up prpobably helped.

Re: 1 match ban : Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:15 am  

ROBINSON wrote:

It's about right for Fielden. Anyone would be angry abut having their leg stamped on, but contrary to what some are saying, he did not 'defend himself'. It wasn't a sustained attack and therefore there was no reason to defend. What he did, was retaliate to the incident and attack Keith Mason after the incident had happened. Some might argue that he was justified.

Mason should have got eight matches for that stamp. He could have snapped Fielden's leg, it was deliberate and nasty. Three matches is a joke.

You obviously didn't see the same game as i did. Mason had run off after the stamp and Fielden stood up having verbals with the 2 markers. Mason comes storming in from afar looking to barge into Fielden. Fielden stood his ground and let Mason have it.

I can understand people getting binned for retaliating when players are lying on etc but Mason could've broken Fieldens ankle. Sin binning should have been ample for the scrapping and Mason should have got 4/5 games.

Re: 1 match ban : Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:24 am  

NickyKiss wrote:

Ryan Bailey didn't get a ban after the Leeds game because he had the cup semi the week after and his offence was really dangerous play that could have lead to Carmont getting badly injured.

Still moaning about that one?

Re: 1 match ban : Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:08 am  

cadoo wrote:

:)

The ban aside, the one positive that has come from all this is that Fielden looks hungry. He was excellent on Sunday and looked like the 'Stuart Fielden' we all remember ripping sides apart at Bradford. He's brought back that killer offload when he spins in the tackle. Most importantly for me, he looks aggressive, tough and isn't afraid to chuck his weight about. You can see the intensity lift in his game. Fantastic for Wigan & for England RL. Anyone would be a fool to deny that Fielden on his day is one of the best props in the country.

Agreed - We need our forwards to be at the top of their game going into the playoffs, and Stuart was superb on Sunday.

Re: 1 match ban : Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:49 am  

bigtruck wrote:

You obviously didn't see the same game as i did. Mason had run off after the stamp and Fielden stood up having verbals with the 2 markers. Mason comes storming in from afar looking to barge into Fielden. Fielden stood his ground and let Mason have it.

I can understand people getting binned for retaliating when players are lying on etc but Mason could've broken Fieldens ankle. Sin binning should have been ample for the scrapping and Mason should have got 4/5 games.

You are right that Fielden could have had his ankle broken, but it was Fielden who carried the whole episode on. He was the one having a go at the marker.

I'm not condoning what Mason did - far from it, I think it was despicable - but you if you retaliate and cause a punch up, then you can reasonably expect to be punished. Players get cited for all sorts of things all the time, especially when there are cameras all over the place, so there was no need to 'sort things out' there and then. It's not rocket science to find the incident on tape after the game and refer the incident to the RFL, is it?

I appreciate a player's view may be clouded in the heat of the moment, but these players are professionals after all. Rugby League is supposed to be the toughest of tough sports, not a violent sport, where you can just belt someone when they do something you don't like.

Re: 1 match ban : Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:58 am  

Don't agree. The punch up was destined to start when Mason came wading in!!
Was he bad mouthing the marker, I'm not sure. I think he could have been complaining to the ref for the lack of action taken, if you look you will see that Riddell also complains about it.

I'm sorry. The RFL got it wrong and Fielden should have a good case to appeal his ban. Sin bin sufficient.

Re: 1 match ban : Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:03 am  

MattyB wrote:

Don't agree. The punch up was destined to start when Mason came wading in!!
Was he bad mouthing the marker, I'm not sure. I think he could have been complaining to the ref for the lack of action taken, if you look you will see that Riddell also complains about it.

I'm sorry. The RFL got it wrong and Fielden should have a good case to appeal his ban. Sin bin sufficient.

Totally agree.

And i strongly suspect that without Fieldens reaction the issue would of even been raised, after all it was only Brian Carney who spotted the incident on the initial replay following Masons charge at Fielden.

If you put the livelehood of another player at risk then a punch up is the very least you can expect even from the most mild mannered of players.

Fielden actually deserves credit for not punching the marker!

Re: 1 match ban : Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:07 am  

If he pled guilty to fighting then it wont be possible to appeal, if i am correct