Re: TV games (not Wire) : Tue Feb 28, 2023 4:30 pm  

fez1 wrote: Personally I would have been more satisfied with a penalty try and a yellow card for the Welsby offence, but it is what it is. I'm still not clear whether both punishments are allowed for the one offence. Yes, they are. When we played Wigan away in 2020, Chris Hill was sent off for a high tackle on Sam Powell, and a penalty try was also awarded. The incident can be seen at around 1 min 40 sec here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UFeEFZ ... =SkySports

fez1 wrote: Personally I would have been more satisfied with a penalty try and a yellow card for the Welsby offence, but it is what it is. I'm still not clear whether both punishments are allowed for the one offence. Yes, they are. When we played Wigan away in 2020, Chris Hill was sent off for a high tackle on Sam Powell, and a penalty try was also awarded. The incident can be seen at around 1 min 40 sec here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UFeEFZ ... =SkySports

Re: TV games (not Wire) : Tue Feb 28, 2023 4:38 pm  

The Speculator wrote:

fez1 wrote:

Personally I would have been more satisfied with a penalty try and a yellow card for the Welsby offence, but it is what it is.
I'm still not clear whether both punishments are allowed for the one offence.

Yes, they are. When we played Wigan away in 2020, Chris Hill was sent off for a high tackle and a penalty try was also awarded.

That was probably a Wire punishment. Similar to the Leeds forward pass & Saints dubious line speed.

Re: TV games (not Wire) : Tue Feb 28, 2023 5:52 pm  

I think people just misunderstand it - it depends what the call is. If the high tackle is worthy of a yellow/red on its own and also happens to stop a player scoring a certain try then you can give the yellow/red and penalty try.

If the above isn’t true then you have 2 options, you either give a penalty and a yellow for the professional foul (ala Makinson in the semi final) or you give the penalty try and no card. You couldn’t give a yellow for a professional foul AND award a penalty try, because the yellow in that instance is for stopping a clear scoring opportunity, which isn’t true if they’ve given the try anyway.

Personally I can’t stand penalty tries, don’t think they should exist. Should always be a penalty and a yellow instead.

Also in this instance I don’t think the high tackle was worthy of a card on its own, he got stepped and mistimed his tackle. Came up off the shoulder. Nothing to see. I’m glad they’re not gonna be retroactively giving bans for that crap any more

Re: TV games (not Wire) : Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:37 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

They can hand out bans and I'm sure they would if they suspect a player was deliberately looking to injure a player's head. But the option to assasinate a team's star players in that scenario has always been there. Never been anything stopping you sending your fringe players you don't need on a head hunting spree or two. I guess Terry Newton was the only player thick enough to make it entirely obvious though.

I suppose that's true enough. It doesn't really sit right with me that an unfortunate pkayer who receives a head shot could potentially be missing for 2 matches (or maybe even 3 around Easter time) whilst the opposition player who caused it gets to carry on playing.

To be honest, I have no problem with the way the welsby incident was dealt with, so long as all incidents are treated that way through the season. My only real gripe with the judiciary panel is the lack of consistency.

Re: TV games (not Wire) : Wed Mar 01, 2023 12:56 pm  

CW8 wrote:

I suppose that's true enough. It doesn't really sit right with me that an unfortunate pkayer who receives a head shot could potentially be missing for 2 matches (or maybe even 3 around Easter time) whilst the opposition player who caused it gets to carry on playing.

To be honest, I have no problem with the way the welsby incident was dealt with, so long as all incidents are treated that way through the season. My only real gripe with the judiciary panel is the lack of consistency.

They've made a good start IMO. Everyone knows the difference between a genuinely malicious or very severe impact and the kind of unintentional or low risk stuff technicalitiies that was deemed worthy of a ban in the last few seasons. I think the overzealous approach led to a lot of hysteria from fans, as they were micro analysing every collision in the hope of finding something that could get a rival player banned. People were spending the week raging about who got banned and who didn't and there was frustration everywhere. Also means we get to see players play the game rather than watch it from the stands, which should mean a better product that gets people talking about the rugby not the disciplinary and appeals process. If it does result in players being more reckless they'll have to look at it again, but hopefully it won't.

Re: TV games (not Wire) : Fri Mar 03, 2023 8:13 pm  

Already know the outcome of that. Sin bin sufficient.

Re: TV games (not Wire) : Fri Mar 03, 2023 8:48 pm  

Leeds passing is woeful, Saints making yards without the ball

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: TV games (not Wire) : Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:12 pm  

karetaker wrote:

Already know the outcome of that. Sin bin sufficient.

Probably not he's been banned for that a few times now

Re: TV games (not Wire) : Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:40 pm  

leigh winning at HKR... great result if they can finish the job.

Re: TV games (not Wire) : Fri Mar 03, 2023 10:00 pm  

WOW going to be a massive meltdown on Redvee after that, got to say Saints were robbed on that Walters decision and Myler yet again with amateur dramatics, yes it was a penalty but he knows how to get them.