Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:46 pm  

saint at wire wrote:

Don't agree with you regards to Hock (as you can see above). I thought his was worse than Wello's the previous week and he is still facing potential trouble for the ball throwing incident, but I agree with you in that I thought both Lance and McIlorum should have got a short ban.

There wasn't anything wrong with Hock's tackle on Roby early on. The late challenge was worthy of a caution, he didn't raise the arms into the tackle but still caught the player late.
McIlorum's spear tackle is consistent with what the disciplinary committee usually judge when another player is responsible for bringing the player down and the late challenge on Roby was shoulder first, and challenges like that never get punished.

There was nothing in the high shot by Hohaia either, it was just a lazy attempt late in the game. A ban for that would be very harsh.

The only real poor decision by the disciplinary in recent weeks was to ban Wellens because there was nothing in it. Other than that they've been pretty consistent.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:25 pm  

The only way we will ever get some sort of consistency over discipline is to have the same panel every week for the season. Whether this is possible or not is another matter. That way we can see if there really is any proper consistency or not.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:04 pm  

The system has been a joke for years, the only consistency from the discipline panel is it's lack of consistency.

A few years back everyone was getting letters for dangerous tackles no matter their previous record.

Even this year Brent webb got away with a fine on appeal for pushing a ref due to lack of intent and spotless record. Wellens got a 1 match ban due to lack of intent and spotless record. Before anyone says well one is dangerous the other is not. The grading of contact with a ref is grade C, Wellens was grade B, so even the rules are set up to find one more serious than the other. Hence why grade C carries up to 3 matches, B up to 2.

The only saving grace is that we have a half back for Widnes.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:30 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

The grading of contact with a ref is grade C, Wellens was grade B, so even the rules are set up to find one more serious than the other. Hence why grade C carries up to 3 matches, B up to 2.

Players can get massive bans for making contact with the ref. Wasn't one player a couple of seasons back given a five match ban for contact with the ref? I don't think that particular offence has anything to do with seriousness in a rugby sense. It is about maintaining authority so really contact with the ref can't be compared to any other offence.

I don't remember seeing the tackle that is being discussed but if the player didn't land on his neck then chances are a ban won't be forthcoming as the player wouldn't have been put in a dangerous position. Obviously it was a risky tackle as a caution wouldn't have been given, especially this season when there have been a fair few bans thrown around the place. But I would much rather have this stricter regime where tackles involving the head and neck are concerned than the weak and highly dangerous version we had up to a couple of seasons ago.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:05 pm  

And nobody is mentioning Wilkin's special attention to Hock? Anyway, moving away from the typical vitriolic anti Wigan nonsense, why not go an look at Warrington for a team that get away with it? Morley seems to make one of two high tackles every game I see but do I see him banned that often?

The disciplinary is hugely inconsistant, how many players have thrown a ball into the crowd in recent weeks? How many have been warned by the RFL. The same could be said for spear and high tackles, time and time again it's the same inconsistant news. Cunningham's jab for a broken jaw, what did he get?

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:19 pm  

does nobody think allowances was made for it being a derby? or is that giving the rfl to much credit. was anything seriously that dirty in the game?

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:56 pm  

dubairl wrote:

does nobody think allowances was made for it being a derby? or is that giving the rfl to much credit. was anything seriously that dirty in the game?

I certainly think they made allowances for the derby when reviewing the Saints and Warrington game. Wellens' ban was utterly ridiculous, why it was even cited is beyond me. A nothing incident if there ever was one. Briers trying to steal a penalty, Wellens doing very little and Laffranchi gets a player to 91 degrees and dumps him on his back and is also cited. Wigan had spent a lot of time crying about their enormous injury crisis and I'm sure the RFL took the derby into account then.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:53 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

I certainly think they made allowances for the derby when reviewing the Saints and Warrington game. Wellens' ban was utterly ridiculous, why it was even cited is beyond me. A nothing incident if there ever was one. Briers trying to steal a penalty, Wellens doing very little and Laffranchi gets a player to 91 degrees and dumps him on his back and is also cited. Wigan had spent a lot of time crying about their enormous injury crisis and I'm sure the RFL took the derby into account then.

Oh that's why we won, cause the RFL wanted to 'level the playing field', it all makes sense now

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:05 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Players can get massive bans for making contact with the ref. Wasn't one player a couple of seasons back given a five match ban for contact with the ref? I don't think that particular offence has anything to do with seriousness in a rugby sense. It is about maintaining authority so really contact with the ref can't be compared to any other offence.

I don't remember seeing the tackle that is being discussed but if the player didn't land on his neck then chances are a ban won't be forthcoming as the player wouldn't have been put in a dangerous position. Obviously it was a risky tackle as a caution wouldn't have been given, especially this season when there have been a fair few bans thrown around the place. But I would much rather have this stricter regime where tackles involving the head and neck are concerned than the weak and highly dangerous version we had up to a couple of seasons ago.

Hock was given a lengthy ban a few seasons ago for grabbing the ref by his elbow (the ref had his back to him) to try and turn him towards him whilst trying to make a point.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:46 am  

I think the reason MM wasn't banned was because it was the other players momentum in the tackle that continued the leg lift and landing. MM started the tackle but when the players legs were being lifted higher, MM's feet were both off the ground - there's no way he could have continued to lift the player up as he would have defied the laws of physics.

He didn't lift the player above horizontal so there's no way he can be judged responsible for the tackle.