: Tue May 26, 2009 5:28 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

No he shouldn't, he just stood his ground Carvell moved forward into Fielden. The penalty was the wrong way, that's why both he and Noble were so upset, and Warrington scored from the penalty.

I have no objection to him being charged for bad language but the penalty was wrong. He was in front of Carvell and never laid a hand on him or the ball.

Nah, I disagree on this one.

Fielden wasn;t even stood up, he was still on one knee, refusing to move backwards away from the tackled player with his hands in the air.

If he wasn;t trying to interfere, why would he have his hands in the air, claiming he wasn;t interfering, and why was he on one knee. I agree that the penalty could have gone the other way, as Carvell made a meal of it, however I think Fielden made it easy for the penalty to go against him. Had he stepped back, he would have had a case for appealing for a penalty. As he didn;t the penalty was always going to go against him. He needs to clear the ruck, and he didn;t.

: Tue May 26, 2009 6:16 pm  

Penalty was right, as a defending player you know that if you don't get out of the way you're in trouble. He was being a dumb meathead by standing his ground rather than getting out of the way, maybe if he'd moved the penalty would have gone the other way. Then as if he hasn't hampered us enough this season he swears at the ref, get O'Carroll in there!

: Tue May 26, 2009 6:19 pm  

Dave T wrote:

Nah, I disagree on this one.

Fielden wasn;t even stood up, he was still on one knee, refusing to move backwards away from the tackled player with his hands in the air.

If he wasn;t trying to interfere, why would he have his hands in the air, claiming he wasn;t interfering, and why was he on one knee. I agree that the penalty could have gone the other way, as Carvell made a meal of it, however I think Fielden made it easy for the penalty to go against him. Had he stepped back, he would have had a case for appealing for a penalty. As he didn;t the penalty was always going to go against him. He needs to clear the ruck, and he didn;t.

He had already cleared the rook, but hadn't regained his feet (he was actually on both his knees). Carvell then moved off the mark into him.

I'd agree it was a penalty that could've of gone either way, but I think Fieldens frustration was that it was another penalty that went against Wigan. He had a point too.

: Tue May 26, 2009 6:26 pm  

Carvell should have played the ball on the spot where he was tackled, not 1 metre forward.

Fielden deliberately kept his hands away from the ball and Carvell. It was never a Warrington penalty hence both Fieldens and Nobles frustration.

: Tue May 26, 2009 6:33 pm  

Chieftain McBeefton wrote:

Not as bad as kids being able to see Keiron Cunningham's face on TV.

And not half so scary as Sean Long's hair!!!

: Tue May 26, 2009 6:34 pm  

Fielden wasn't doing anything to pevent Carvell playing the ball.

If Carvell stands up on the mark he has no problem playing the ball.

Nothing wrong with what Fielden did and when you are 1 ft from your own line the last thing you do is step back and give the attacker more ground.

Was definately no penalty and led to a try - bad decision.

: Tue May 26, 2009 8:01 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Carvell should have played the ball on the spot where he was tackled, not 1 metre forward.

Fielden deliberately kept his hands away from the ball and Carvell. It was never a Warrington penalty hence both Fieldens and Nobles frustration.

I've just watched it again. The replay clearly shows that the penalty is actually given whilst Carvell is still on the ground, and by the time he stands up (much less than 1m forward) the ref has blown up.

Fielden does not clear the ruck quickly enough. He is trying to win the wrestle, and he gives a penalty. I had last seen it a couple of days ago when I first commented on this, however just watching it again now, it was 100% clear. Carvell doesn't even get to play the ball.

I know the commentators aren't exactly the most knowledgable, but Stevo certainly agreed it was a penalty and stated it was quite clear that Fielden didn't clear the ruck.

: Wed May 27, 2009 4:19 pm  

one match ban for raising the knee but found not guilty for abusive language - cant they lip read

: Wed May 27, 2009 4:26 pm  

YICKER wrote:

one match ban for raising the knee but found not guilty for abusive language - cant they lip read

They are complete jokers.

[Pemps]

: Wed May 27, 2009 4:28 pm  

RB wrote:

They are complete jokers.

Bent B'stards