Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Tue Aug 27, 2024 10:44 am  

Cruncher wrote:

Appreciate the thought you've given to this.

I'm not denying that they've been put in an difficult position by all these opportunist claims for damages (I'm not sure when these court cases will actually be heard, but it's certainly dragging on). But when it comes to punishment afterwards, they really need to start discerning between accidental contact and deliberate.

Just parking the Tommy Makinson example as there seem to be wildly differing views on that one, we're all in agreement that there have been a number of ridiculously OTT suspensions passed this season. And that's a real danger in a high-speed, heavy collision sport like ours. If they continue with this, the very nature of our game is under threat, which, given that it apparently isn't in Australia, could see the UK finishing up with a sport that is rugby league in name only.

One thing that is within our power is to sort out this sentencing process. Some referees are behaving as if red cards are a new toy, but if we can't do anything about that because the insurance people demand it, we can at least adopt a more measured approach when it comes to further action. The mere fact that no one's suggesting players get suspended for accidental head clashes indicates an awareness that accidents happen.

If nothing else, they need to take a far less cavalier approach to red card incidents, and go through the video thoroughly afterwards to ensure that that the head contact was, firstly, real, and secondly, intentional. I genuinely don't believe they're doing that at present.

Agree with this mate. The problem lies in the inconsistencies. I've just watched the Paul Wellens post match presser and his views on the Makinson tackle are almost identical to the ones I've expressed here: don't particularly like it but it's the way the game is and we have to deal with it. However it's too inconsistent.

I think there's very much a 'trying to discourage serial offenders' element to this. It's a bit of a cack-handed approach that they're taking but it's working to some degree. They're not accepting the 'I can't do anything about it' defence which is fair enough. As I said, Mata'utia and Sironen have managed to adjust their style adequately for example.

I'm willing to bet that any one of us could go through every team and quite easily pick out the players most likely to put in a headshot. There's a reason Harvard rarely, if ever hits high, but, say, Ellis or Byrne regularly do. Same with Wardle as opposed to Keighran in the backs. I don't think Wardle or Harvard play a lesser version of the game as is being made out regarding all these cards and bans. Tommy wouldn't be playing a lesser version of the game by not staying bolt upright and jumping into the tackle.

I don't think the new rules need to be the death knell for the sport. We just need players who are seemingly unable to get the message to adapt and for the game to police it properly. That's surely not too much to ask, is it?

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Tue Aug 27, 2024 11:18 am  

Phuzzy wrote:

Cruncher, please don't take this as being argumentative. That's not my intention at all. I've always enjoyed your posts and, whilst I don't always agree necessarily, I can always see the merit in them. I just don't see what you're point is here.

We lose players to a much richer competition. That's simple economics. I hate it as much as you do but what's your real world solution?

You don't like the draconian punishments. Me neither. But with only 1 insurance company even prepared to consider our sport and only then with these measures in place, again what's your real world solution?

If you're just venting steam then that's fine. I get it. But if you think there's something the sport isn't doing that it should be then I'd be interested to hear it.

Where I will agree is that the disciplinary process isn't for for purpose. It's too inconsistent. However that doesn't extend to Tommy's ban. I think it's harsh but he's a serial offender who simply will not adjust his tackling technique. Mata'utia and Sironen have seemingly managed it, so why is he exempt? I like Tommy as a player and in another era I'd commend his no compromise approach but we aren't operating in another era.

I'd like nothing more than the game to remain as it was. If it did, there'd be no game at all. If you have a solution, I'd be the happiest person on this forum to hear it and I mean that genuinely.

Highly doubt the “insurance companies” have insisted on a disciplinary panel at all, you’ve just made that up.

They will have just said that we need to change the rules and cut down on head contacts, how that’s done is up to the RFL

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Tue Aug 27, 2024 11:21 am  

The Reaper wrote:

Highly doubt the “insurance companies” have insisted on a disciplinary panel at all, you’ve just made that up.

They will have just said that we need to change the rules and cut down on head contacts, how that’s done is up to the RFL

Nah, they would just increase the premiums proportionally to cover the risk and probably increase the excess too.

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Tue Aug 27, 2024 11:22 am  

I found the "Only Bans" page, Saints are currently joint 3rd with Catalans on 15 accumulated matches but they will be clear 3rd if Makinson loses his appeal, Wigan and Hull are joint top on 20.
HKR were joint bottom with Leigh on 3 and will remain there but it goes up to 4 for both clubs after last weekends fixtures.
Wire are in 8th spot with 6 matches

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Tue Aug 27, 2024 11:31 am  

The Reaper wrote:

Highly doubt the “insurance companies” have insisted on a disciplinary panel at all, you’ve just made that up.

They will have just said that we need to change the rules and cut down on head contacts, how that’s done is up to the RFL

I can't make something up that I never even said.

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Tue Aug 27, 2024 1:45 pm  

apollosghost wrote:

I found the "Only Bans" page, Saints are currently joint 3rd with Catalans on 15 accumulated matches but they will be clear 3rd if Makinson loses his appeal, Wigan and Hull are joint top on 20.
HKR were joint bottom with Leigh on 3 and will remain there but it goes up to 4 for both clubs after last weekends fixtures.
Wire are in 8th spot with 6 matches

A big difference. Either Wigan, Saints and Hull are being refereed differently and being judged more harshly by the MRP, or the likes of HKR and Leigh are squeaky clean.

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Tue Aug 27, 2024 1:48 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

Agree with this mate. The problem lies in the inconsistencies. I've just watched the Paul Wellens post match presser and his views on the Makinson tackle are almost identical to the ones I've expressed here: don't particularly like it but it's the way the game is and we have to deal with it. However it's too inconsistent.

I think there's very much a 'trying to discourage serial offenders' element to this. It's a bit of a cack-handed approach that they're taking but it's working to some degree. They're not accepting the 'I can't do anything about it' defence which is fair enough. As I said, Mata'utia and Sironen have managed to adjust their style adequately for example.

I'm willing to bet that any one of us could go through every team and quite easily pick out the players most likely to put in a headshot. There's a reason Harvard rarely, if ever hits high, but, say, Ellis or Byrne regularly do. Same with Wardle as opposed to Keighran in the backs. I don't think Wardle or Harvard play a lesser version of the game as is being made out regarding all these cards and bans. Tommy wouldn't be playing a lesser version of the game by not staying bolt upright and jumping into the tackle.

I don't think the new rules need to be the death knell for the sport. We just need players who are seemingly unable to get the message to adapt and for the game to police it properly. That's surely not too much to ask, is it?

I don't disagree that both groups are going to have to get their act together. Though as fans, I think we've got some painful months, if not years, ahead.

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Tue Aug 27, 2024 1:54 pm  

Stu M wrote:

I'll repeat what I said earlier (and ok he will be 33 come the season start) Their fans are really sad he's leaving, that's a good sign for me.

On the face of it signing a 32 year old winger to replace a 32 year old winger doesn't sound like a clever decision..

However when you read the comments of the NQ fans they are sad to see him go. I think he is currently on 18 tries this season so clearly he is not a busted flush and we all know the SL is not at that standard. 1-2 years of him here helping the young lads would be a good decision and he's obviously still capable of playing at the top level.

Not sure of his record for injuries but he seems very durable and for all Tommy M is a legend and rightly so he is beginning to pick up injuries especially on his foot.

His try scoring record in a much superior comp is superb. Him and Sailor are two very good additions so far.

Like for like in my view.

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Tue Aug 27, 2024 3:01 pm  

Zig wrote:

Like for like in my view.

I think we are getting a slight upgrade. His try scoring record this season is superb and there's not one NQ fan happy to see him leave. Judging by their comments on our social media they are gutted.

Not just saying this because he's leaving but Makinson has been less effective this season, not as good in backfield and on exit sets.

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Tue Aug 27, 2024 3:08 pm  

You've regularly said that pace is your main issue Stu. Given that was the case this year with Makinson and Feldt is equally slow, if not slower, how does this signing help solve those issues? Surely it compounds them in that Makinson's place was available for a speedy back and now no longer is.