Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:32 am  

Sam Buca wrote:

What? McGold(p)rick instigated a reaction from Wellens. Bailey instigated a reaction from Radford. Simples.

I know sometimes you want things to be black and white, but you can't always look at it that way.
A bit of pushing and shoving could be seen as a reaction (and penalised), but you wouldn't want the player sentoff for it. Also, if McGoldrick had, say, poked Wellens in the eye, or stuck his fingers up his booty, then most poster would be of the opinion that the provocation was the main offence and ignored the offence of the reaction. The scale of the incidents must be taken into consideration, although shouldn't be solely reposible for the judgement made.
Radford layed into a prone player, and was sent off for it. Given the hindsight TV allowed me regarding the provoking elbows from Bailey, I'd have said yellow would have been sufficient, but I accepted the red.
Any player, let alone the team captain, should not allow them selves to lose their cool on the pitch like that.

Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:44 am  

Offside Monkey wrote:

I know sometimes you want things to be black and white, but you can't always look at it that way.
A bit of pushing and shoving could be seen as a reaction (and penalised), but you wouldn't want the player sentoff for it. Also, if McGoldrick had, say, poked Wellens in the eye, or stuck his fingers up his booty, then most poster would be of the opinion that the provocation was the main offence and ignored the offence of the reaction. The scale of the incidents must be taken into consideration, although shouldn't be solely reposible for the judgement made.
Radford layed into a prone player, and was sent off for it. Given the hindsight TV allowed me regarding the provoking elbows from Bailey, I'd have said yellow would have been sufficient, but I accepted the red.
Any player, let alone the team captain, should not allow them selves to lose their cool on the pitch like that.

I'm sure some of you would've enjoyed it
Meh, i still think it was poor reffing to let it go.

Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:59 am  

Sam Buca wrote:

I'm sure some of you would've enjoyed it
Meh, i still think it was poor reffing to let it go.

OK, disregarding comparisons with other events of the weekend, if the ref had sin-binned one of them, would your reaction have been "Quite right!"?
If so, I think you're on you own, I suspect the vast majority (whatever the club they support) would have agreed with a pen and a lecture.

Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:05 am  

Offside Monkey wrote:

OK, disregarding comparisons with other events of the weekend, if the ref had sin-binned one of them, would your reaction have been "Quite right!"?
If so, I think you're on you own, I suspect the vast majority (whatever the club they support) would have agreed with a pen and a lecture.

I wouldn't have complained if it was.

Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:34 am  

Sam Buca wrote:

I wouldn't have complained if it was.

Fair enough.

Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:05 pm  

Both Wellens and Radford should have received the same punishment, what that punishment should have been is debatable. Personally a yellow a piece would have been fair (Bailey should have had the so should McGoldrick if hit out at Wellens first).

As usual though referees are consistently inconsistent.

Re: Wellens : Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:53 am  

Offside Monkey wrote:

C'mon, its not wendy ball we're watching. It was six of one and half a dozen of the other, and wouldn't (shouldn't) be classed as anything other than handbags. Penalty and a talking to at the most.

Except that's not how the RFL is (supposed) to view it. In the words of the Disciplinary Committee, when discussing retaliation in an incident in another match on that day: "In a word we view it seriously because if it were otherwise everyone would retaliate and there would be anarchy."

Those comments were made by the committee to Radford who would have been given a 1 match suspension had he not already served a de facto 1 match suspension due to the early time of his sending off. So we have to treat retaliation seriously, right? Except when Wellens "reacts to provocation from opponent" by elbowing and punching him in the face: no sin bin, no sending off, no charge.

Re: Wellens : Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:10 am  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

Except that's not how the RFL is (supposed) to view it. In the words of the Disciplinary Committee, when discussing retaliation in an incident in another match on that day: "In a word we view it seriously because if it were otherwise everyone would retaliate and there would be anarchy."

Those comments were made by the committee to Radford who would have been given a 1 match suspension had he not already served a de facto 1 match suspension due to the early time of his sending off. So we have to treat retaliation seriously, right? Except when Wellens "reacts to provocation from opponent" by elbowing and punching him in the face: no sin bin, no sending off, no charge.

May I suggest that you go back home and take a long hard look at your own players before making any comment about players on our or any other team in the SL. There are more incidents of this kind of thing in the Wigan team than anywhere else.

Re: Wellens : Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:52 pm  

If Wellens had had to go for that then we'd end up with 7 a side most weeks in all games. Radford threw five or six punches, if he'd thrown one he wouldn't have been sent off.

Re: Wellens : Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:02 am  

Agent Mulder wrote:

May I suggest that you go back home and take a long hard look at your own players before making any comment about players on our or any other team in the SL. There are more incidents of this kind of thing in the Wigan team than anywhere else.

Don't complain about bad decisions because at some point your team will have gained from one, don't complain about foul play because at some point your team will have committed a foul. So what you're suggesting is nobody should ever discuss super league? I've got a better idea, we all post what we want and whoever disagrees can post their disagreement. That ok by you boss?

If you disagree with anything I wrote about the Wellens incident or the RFL's stance on retaliation feel free to point out my inaccuracies.