: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:24 pm  

Lord_Percy wrote: 59th minute The warning letter for Ablett refers to something that happened in the 27th Leave it out Leeds. The game's hard enough as it is without these type of tackles. No place for it, if proven. Benefit of the doubt for now.

Lord_Percy wrote: 59th minute The warning letter for Ablett refers to something that happened in the 27th Leave it out Leeds. The game's hard enough as it is without these type of tackles. No place for it, if proven. Benefit of the doubt for now.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:40 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Leave it out Leeds. The game's hard enough as it is without these type of tackles. No place for it, if proven. Benefit of the doubt for now.

Exactly. It's a cowards way of doing things, trying to injure players who, in the main, can't defend themselves.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:43 pm  

Out of interest, how in the hell was the Gilmour/Smith incident dealt with appropriately by the referee?

Thats what it says. They have a case for displinary against Gilmour for the tackle. Saints got the penalty incorrectly. Yet the disciplinary decision is the referee dealt with approporiately.

How was it a disciplinary case against Gilmour if dealt with appropriately?

Are they saying that on viewing the game again that Gilmour was not at fault? If so why mention clumsy tackle around the head after tackle completed?

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:52 pm  

DISA wrote:

Out of interest, how in the hell was the Gilmour/Smith incident dealt with appropriately by the referee?

Because in cases such as these they reveal themselves as the referee apologetic buffoons they undoubtedly are.

And well done to Jon Wilkin for protecting an opposition player from getting an undeserved bitch slapping from Gilmour. That was nice to see.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:27 pm  

Im afraid I clocked it live in the match - and mentioned it to "our kid" at the time. The saints player didnt react at all.


1 game ban

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:02 pm  

I saw our players a couple of times and I wasn't impressed.

benefit of the doubt, they're trying to roll the tackled player onto his back. Worst case scenario , they're attempting a chicken wing.

Don't like to see it.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:53 pm  

Saw at least 1 chicken wing tackle, think it was Diskin, but may have been the ABlett one also

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:39 pm  

A-Fire-Inside wrote:

Just watched, doesnt look much in it IMO

A chicken wing is pulling back a limb so the pressure is on the joint. Didn't you see the way Wheeler got up from the tackle? We all noticed it where I was standing.

although the camera angles not the best for seeing it clearly, but theres no penalty

There doesn't need to be. The RFL now watches all matches afterwards to scan for these things. I think that's how Fas was caught (and he deserved his ban).

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:41 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

A chicken wing is pulling back a limb so the pressure is on the joint. Didn't you see the way Wheeler got up from the tackle? We all noticed it where I was standing.


There doesn't need to be. The RFL now watches all matches afterwards to scan for these things. I think that's how Fas was caught (and he deserved his ban).

If it is a "chicken wing" tackle then a ban is fully deserved the game is tough enough as it is and this type of "tackle" is not needed nor wanted.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:44 pm  

Diskin doesnt really strike me as a dirty player. Maybe he was just trying to roll Wheeler on to his back and got the technique wrong?