Re: Sqaud for Warrington : Mon Jun 19, 2023 2:40 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

That Hardaker one is another. Compare that to what Isa got 2 games for in the Wakey game!

When people call them out as bias against a particular team, I just don’t buy that. The disciplinary aren’t bias at all IMO but they are wildly inconsistent and seem to focus heavily on certain issues, while giving huge leeway on others.

The've managed to find another one for Walmsley to get a charge back on his rap sheet. I'd appeal again just for the craic.

Can only think it was for that collision with Satae that Kear said was worth the admission alone. If that's a high tackle the game has gone.

There's huge inconsistencies with the MRP. I expected Batchelor to be in trouble for a shoulder charge where he didn't wrap his arms but I don't even think its made the minutes

Re: Sqaud for Warrington : Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:30 pm  

Stu M wrote:

The've managed to find another one for Walmsley to get a charge back on his rap sheet. I'd appeal again just for the craic.

Can only think it was for that collision with Satae that Kear said was worth the admission alone. If that's a high tackle the game has gone.

There's huge inconsistencies with the MRP. I expected Batchelor to be in trouble for a shoulder charge where he didn't wrap his arms but I don't even think its made the minutes

I think everyone is pretty lost with it all. I’ll never call bias against them but it all looks totally incompetent at the minute. If some of these cases were in a court of law, they’d be absolutely ripped apart. Obviously we all only really remember our own cases well but that Isa one I mention against Wakefield was an incredible ban at the time and now I see the Hardaker one and it’s just astonishing.

Re: Sqaud for Warrington : Mon Jun 19, 2023 4:03 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

I think everyone is pretty lost with it all. I’ll never call bias against them but it all looks totally incompetent at the minute. If some of these cases were in a court of law, they’d be absolutely ripped apart. Obviously we all only really remember our own cases well but that Isa one I mention against Wakefield was an incredible ban at the time and now I see the Hardaker one and it’s just astonishing.

I said at the time that the Isa tackle was the best I'd seen since TL on Fasavalu. The charge was a joke as they put it down to "releasing the player" in the final split second of the tackle. He must have been all of 6 inches off the ground when that happened. How there is even the remotest possibility of injury from that is bordering on the farcical.

Re: Sqaud for Warrington : Tue Jun 20, 2023 6:41 am  

Phuzzy wrote:

I said at the time that the Isa tackle was the best I'd seen since TL on Fasavalu. The charge was a joke as they put it down to "releasing the player" in the final split second of the tackle. He must have been all of 6 inches off the ground when that happened. How there is even the remotest possibility of injury from that is bordering on the farcical.

He might have hurt his feelings

Re: Sqaud for Warrington : Tue Jun 20, 2023 8:01 am  

Stu M wrote: The've managed to find another one for Walmsley to get a charge back on his rap sheet. I'd appeal again just for the craic. Can only think it was for that collision with Satae that Kear said was worth the admission alone. If that's a high tackle the game has gone. There's huge inconsistencies with the MRP. I expected Batchelor to be in trouble for a shoulder charge where he didn't wrap his arms but I don't even think its made the minutes Will only get worse if the new rules they are trialing at academy level get through, may as well fold the game if the Armpit rule passes through. Take a look at how many high tackle penalties were given in the first trial. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... concussion

Stu M wrote: The've managed to find another one for Walmsley to get a charge back on his rap sheet. I'd appeal again just for the craic. Can only think it was for that collision with Satae that Kear said was worth the admission alone. If that's a high tackle the game has gone. There's huge inconsistencies with the MRP. I expected Batchelor to be in trouble for a shoulder charge where he didn't wrap his arms but I don't even think its made the minutes Will only get worse if the new rules they are trialing at academy level get through, may as well fold the game if the Armpit rule passes through. Take a look at how many high tackle penalties were given in the first trial. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... concussion

Re: Sqaud for Warrington : Wed Jun 21, 2023 8:37 am  

Pile drive a player on his head-6 games

Call a ref a cheat-7 games


Griffin was out of order clearly but the disciplinary is just out of control at the moment. There are just wild inconsistencies across the board and the level of punishments for various incidents just seem so wrong.

Re: Sqaud for Warrington : Wed Jun 21, 2023 8:51 am  

NickyKiss wrote:

Pile drive a player on his head-6 games

Call a ref a cheat-7 games


Griffin was out of order clearly but the disciplinary is just out of control at the moment. There are just wild inconsistencies across the board and the level of punishments for various incidents just seem so wrong.

Does seem harsh but it will be interesting if we find out what has been said. There are young refs quitting in droves across grassroots football and rugby due to the abuse they receive so I do believe a marker needs to be put down to say that dissent won't be tolerated.

Also Griffin committed a similar offence earlier in the season and was banned so undoubtedly this has probably added another 2-3 games on this particular ban

Re: Sqaud for Warrington : Wed Jun 21, 2023 8:51 am  

BoredWiganer wrote: Will only get worse if the new rules they are trialing at academy level get through, may as well fold the game if the Armpit rule passes through. Take a look at how many high tackle penalties were given in the first trial. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... concussion Yeah saw that. Crazy number of penalties

BoredWiganer wrote: Will only get worse if the new rules they are trialing at academy level get through, may as well fold the game if the Armpit rule passes through. Take a look at how many high tackle penalties were given in the first trial. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... concussion Yeah saw that. Crazy number of penalties

Re: Sqaud for Warrington : Wed Jun 21, 2023 9:52 am  

Griffin looks a plank and ref abuse is becoming an issue but the bans just don’t stack up sometimes. Some of the bans we’ve seen for contact with the ref have been staggering. It all feels like they’re slightly precious at times. The issue in football is far worse and Griffins incident looked next to nothing in comparison to Mitrovic from Fulham, who went wild at a ref and put hands on him and got 8 games. Now maybe we have it right and football has it wrong but 7 games for verbals, compared to 6 games for a potential career ending tackle raises questions in my head.

The Ellis incident is a 4 game ban effectively, when it’s two blokes coming together and the contact is that light, you’d be loathed to call it a headbutt. Again that stacks up poorly against incidents like the Charnley one and even the O’Donnell one (which you could say is a 7 game ban, but only 3 games more than Ellis for those incidents? Not for me).

Re: Sqaud for Warrington : Wed Jun 21, 2023 11:21 am  

NickyKiss wrote:

Pile drive a player on his head-6 games

Call a ref a cheat-7 games


Griffin was out of order clearly but the disciplinary is just out of control at the moment. There are just wild inconsistencies across the board and the level of punishments for various incidents just seem so wrong.

Griffin should have been banned until next season to get a message out.
The pile driver also should have been a ban until next season.
Both of these offences need to be eradicated from the game.