[Uncle Rico]

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:56 pm  

Brick with eyes wrote:

So why are penalties given when a player carrying the ball slips before contact resulting in contact to the head from a defender attempting to tackle around waist height, but now hits the head because of the slip ?
Surely that is accidental??

It does happen and is very annoying as it appears to be a 100% given. I get the duty of care aspect, but the defender should be judged less harshly IMO, but I suppose that would require an interpretation by officials and we can all get into another round of debate especially when viewed in real time and slow motion

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:02 pm  

Grimmy wrote:

Careless isn't the same as accidental. We can talk about whether he was careless/reckless, and if he was then he needs penalising and red carding given the severity of the offence, but an accidental kick is not a penalty no matter how many times people claim it as fact. I've just watched it back this morning, there is less than a second between Marshall dropping to the floor and Charnley making contact. I don't think it's even careless from Charnley, he's just chasing after a loose ball.

I didn't say it was the same I said covered under that rule. Like if a ball carrying player slips into a tacklers already committed position causing impact with the head on arm, which is often under a second and accidental as well, you even get refs saying and you must have witnessed "I know it's accidental but it's a penalty?" . I also don't think it's reckless or careless but it's interpretation is regular under that rule with any un deliberate head contact.
I also don't think that players slipping into contact should be a pen under the careless part of the rule, it's part and parcel of a high impact contact sport but if your going off how the rules are being judged it was obviously a pen, I don't know how you could see it any other way?

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:11 pm  

That Mon wrote:

I didn't say it was the same I said covered under that rule. Like if a ball carrying player slips into a tacklers already committed position causing impact with the head on arm, which is often under a second and accidental as well, you even get refs saying and you must have witnessed "I know it's accidental but it's a penalty?" . I also don't think it's reckless or careless but it's interpretation is regular under that rule with any un deliberate head contact.
I also don't think that players slipping into contact should be a pen under the careless part of the rule, it's part and parcel of a high impact contact sport but if your going off how the rules are being judged it was obviously a pen, I don't know how you could see it any other way?

So you don't think it should be a penalty and neither do the officials. Sounds like the correct outcome was achieved. Seriously, it's daft this. It's like we're annoyed with the officials for not giving the wrong decision. Wire fans are laughing at us on their board over our reaction to this, and rightfully so.

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:48 pm  

DizzyHeights wrote:

Played for the penalty by staying down and didn’t get it, he wasn’t bad today but Marshall’s play acting there was a disgrace.

you from warrington by any chance?

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:13 pm  

Grimmy wrote:

So you don't think it should be a penalty and neither do the officials. Sounds like the correct outcome was achieved. Seriously, it's daft this. It's like we're annoyed with the officials for not giving the wrong decision. Wire fans are laughing at us on their board over our reaction to this, and rightfully so.

No it's just hypocritical. The refs are quick to pen us for anything and everything & that's before you get to the judiciary and what they see. But when one of our lads gets booted in the head, it's play on, nothing to see here. You then throw in the fact they didn't even go to the video ref and it's starting to confirm the bias many suspect.

It's the same old story tho, refs are protected and every week they get defended for making poop calls that have major impacts on the game.

Nothing will ever change as long as the waggons are circled and you all to$$ each other off after a game, shouting into your echo chamber of how good of a job your doing. What makes even worse are opposition fans who'll just go along with it because they won, but are too dumb to realise it will happen to them soon. That's why I backed McManus a few years back, even though some of our fans were loving it.

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:23 pm  

sergeant pepper wrote:

No it's just hypocritical. The refs are quick to pen us for anything and everything & that's before you get to the judiciary and what they see. But when one of our lads gets booted in the head, it's play on, nothing to see here. You then throw in the fact they didn't even go to the video ref and it's starting to confirm the bias many suspect.

It's the same old story tho, refs are protected and every week they get defended for making poop calls that have major impacts on the game.

Nothing will ever change as long as the waggons are circled and you all to$$ each other off after a game, shouting into your echo chamber of how good of a job your doing. What makes even worse are opposition fans who'll just go along with it because they won, but are too dumb to realise it will happen to them soon. That's why I backed McManus a few years back, even though some of our fans were loving it.

Booted in the head Charnley trips over him as he dives at his feet. If he had just ran over and booted him in the head then we would all be calling for a penalty and a red card. The fact no one is calling for a red card for a kick to the head tells you all you need to know. If Charnley had been trying to kick the ball then I think we can start talking about him being reckless, but he's just running towards it like he's supposed to.

Opposition fans are going along with it because it would be ridiculous to penalise Charnley for it. You don't even need to follow rugby to watch that and know it would be wrong to punish Charnley there. The same thing happened in the Grand Final one year. It didn't lead to a try but I definitely recall Tomkins accidentally kicking/tripping over a player, who was hurt by it and stayed down. No penalty, no uproar from our fans that day. I do think it should have gone to video ref, but to be fair it would have rightly come back as 'Try' anyway so maybe he was right to back himself.

As for your refs point - you're way off the money. Officials are dropped far more quickly than players are, and the post match reviews are brutal. It just isn't aired in public, exactly the same as Lam isn't generally going to go out in public and slate individual players.

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:31 pm  

I wouldn’t get too eat up about that decision last night because it’s not worth the energy. I don’t have the energy to even bother with reffing decisions at the moment because much like our appalling goal kicking record, we have other major issues that need addressing first before buying in to Lam blaming that call for our downfall. I thought Mamo timed his jump wrong for the try on half time and nudged Gildart, forcing him in to the error but much like the Marshall one, what is the point in bemoaning it when we can’t break teams down at the other end for love nor money. We’re just not giving ourselves the chance of over coming any dubious calls. They’re all so important to us because the only way we seem capable of winning games against anyone bar there likes of Wakey and Leigh is by keeping the opposition under 10 points.

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:42 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

I wouldn’t get too eat up about that decision last night because it’s not worth the energy. I don’t have the energy to even bother with reffing decisions at the moment because much like our appalling goal kicking record, we have other major issues that need addressing first before buying in to Lam blaming that call for our downfall. I thought Mamo timed his jump wrong for the try on half time and nudged Gildart, forcing him in to the error but much like the Marshall one, what is the point in bemoaning it when we can’t break teams down at the other end for love nor money. We’re just not giving ourselves the chance of over coming any dubious calls. They’re all so important to us because the only way we seem capable of winning games against anyone bar there likes of Wakey and Leigh is by keeping the opposition under 10 points.

I don't disagree with any of the above, but they aren't reason's to not call out BS decisions when they happen. When it comes to refs it's all 'whataboutism' i.e yeah the ref was bad, but what about that knock-on, or what about that missed tackle.

Pointing out mistakes the refs make, doesn't undo the other errors. Ignoring the ref and focusing on just the players doesn't help anyone too. It just strokes their egos even more.

Lam was 100% right to call it out. I don't like him as coach, but that doesn't mean I'll not agree with him either.

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:46 pm  

Grimmy wrote:

So you don't think it should be a penalty and neither do the officials. Sounds like the correct outcome was achieved. Seriously, it's daft this. It's like we're annoyed with the officials for not giving the wrong decision. Wire fans are laughing at us on their board over our reaction to this, and rightfully so.

No - He said he doesn't think players slipping into a tackle and contact being made with head should be a Penalty - But it is
He's saying same thing here

Lets say a player dives on a loose ball - Can the tackler just run past him and make contact with his head (Surely it's reckless to not know that your going to make contact with his head) whilst he's on the ground? And even if the reaction time is a second or so, Marshall hasn't lost the ball at that point, he only loses it after the contact, Due to the clash.
Has the exact scenario ever had a rule written down? I would doubt it, and if the ball had already come loose and Charnley had picked the ball up I may say on balance play on (Here I go again saying use common sense - It'll never catch on) I'd say fair enough.

Remember Charnley didn't even pick the ball up - He was running that fast when he made contact he was 2/3 yards past the player when he fell - If he was looking to pick the ball up he'd be stood over the player almost stationery, Once he sees Marshall diving for the ball why isn't he trying to effect the tackle?
He can't see a loose ball (Because there wasn't one) so as soon as he sees Marshall dive for the ball (and gain possession) his only action should be to tackle him. Can see on the replay Brown saying he thought Charnley was trying to "dig out" the ball.
Whether he was or wasn't - The clash with his feet to Marshalls head created the loss of the ball - I bet you can't point to a rule that says that's ok Intentional or not?

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:51 pm  

Jukesays wrote:

No - He said he doesn't think players slipping into a tackle and contact being made with head should be a Penalty - But it is
He's saying same thing here

Lets say a player dives on a loose ball - Can the tackler just run past him and make contact with his head (Surely it's reckless to not know that your going to make contact with his head) whilst he's on the ground? And even if the reaction time is a second or so, Marshall hasn't lost the ball at that point, he only loses it after the contact, Due to the clash.
Has the exact scenario ever had a rule written down? I would doubt it, and if the ball had already come loose and Charnley had picked the ball up I may say on balance play on (Here I go again saying use common sense - It'll never catch on) I'd say fair enough.

Remember Charnley didn't even pick the ball up - He was running that fast when he made contact he was 2/3 yards past the player when he fell - If he was looking to pick the ball up he'd be stood over the player almost stationery, Once he sees Marshall diving for the ball why isn't he trying to effect the tackle?
He can't see a loose ball (Because there wasn't one) so as soon as he sees Marshall dive for the ball (and gain possession) his only action should be to tackle him. Can see on the replay Brown saying he thought Charnley was trying to "dig out" the ball.
Whether he was or wasn't - The clash with his feet to Marshalls head created the loss of the ball - I bet you can't point to a rule that says that's ok Intentional or not?

As you say, it isn't written down as it is interpretation. They're quite poor at writing laws down, and even worse at communicating them to fans. The nearest comparison I can think of is a stray boot to the head when a defender ends up at the back of the tackle. You will get one of them every round, no penalty and people just say 'bad luck, tough sport'.

I think he's upright there anticipating the ball maybe bouncing in a place where he can kick it on or catch it, or maybe ready to tackle Marshall if he catches it upright. Instead Marshall dives on it at Charnley's feet. I can't get into Charnley's head to know for sure but it does look to me like he genuinely just trips over him at speed. Part of this is that you wouldn't just penalise a kick to the head, if you're saying there's any level of intent/recklessness there then he can't stay on the pitch for doing something so dangerous. If would be red card and ban.

Out of interest, if Hicks had put time off there, how would you expect play to restart? Marshall lost it backwards so can't really give a knock on against him. Do we assume he's tackled and give Wigan the ball back even though he dropped it? Tell Mamo to play it where he picked it up? Go back to the previous play the ball before Wigan threw the bad pass? Give Wigan a fresh set of 6 (play irregularly effected - territorial advantage?)?