Re: O/T Mcmanaman's tackle/FA : Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:16 am  

I agree with Whelan on the tackle, the club is fighting for survival, the players fighting for their contracts, I would want my players going into every tackle 100% committed.

Re: O/T Mcmanaman's tackle/FA : Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:22 am  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

The FA are right and the RFL should have a look at this. Regardless of your opinion of the tackle re-refereeing is something that should correctly be awarded. Look at the Nick Scruton tackle against Castleford. Nothing wrong with it Stee Ganson asks the video ref (Silverwood) to check it and he states "nothing in it" (it was audible on the Sky Sports coverage). Meaning the two top refs in the country deem it to be fair but the video panel sited him on the Mon. Motivated by what I don't know hopefully not comments by biased people like Danny Lockwood in League Weekly.

Subsequently Scruton is cleared at the hearing but some face saving takes place that sees him 200 quid out of pocket. Total waste of time and a public slap in the face for the officials on the field.

In times of austerity we should be cutting down on waste. Maybe if they stopped such wastage the RFL might have some cash to advertise the World Cup?

Scruton wasn't cleared, he was found guilty just not given a suspension due to the initial contact being legal and his previous good record.

The RFL are right to punish dangerous play regardless of whether the ref sees it or thinks its ok or not.

You seem very bitter that a player be fined £300 for tackling a player around the head. It's dangerous and should be punished. As was McManaman's tackle, which should also be punished. Anyone who thinks that is a fair tackle is clearly an idiot.

Re: O/T Mcmanaman's tackle/FA : Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:57 am  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

The FA are right and the RFL should have a look at this. Regardless of your opinion of the tackle re-refereeing is something that should correctly be awarded. Look at the Nick Scruton tackle against Castleford. Nothing wrong with it Stee Ganson asks the video ref (Silverwood) to check it and he states "nothing in it" (it was audible on the Sky Sports coverage). Meaning the two top refs in the country deem it to be fair but the video panel sited him on the Mon. Motivated by what I don't know hopefully not comments by biased people like Danny Lockwood in League Weekly.

Subsequently Scruton is cleared at the hearing but some face saving takes place that sees him 200 quid out of pocket. Total waste of time and a public slap in the face for the officials on the field.

In times of austerity we should be cutting down on waste. Maybe if they stopped such wastage the RFL might have some cash to advertise the World Cup?

Couldn't disagree with you more! I'm glad the RFL take the time to go over games and punish any foul play. The referees will make mistakes and get stuff wrong, that shouldn't mean that players should get away with foul play. On the Mcmanaman tackle, whether he went for the ball or not, he tackled the guys knee and could have ended his career.

Re: O/T Mcmanaman's tackle/FA : Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:37 pm  

Credit to the FA for not caving in to the sky sports news induced frenzy over the tackle. Wish they did it more often.

Re: O/T Mcmanaman's tackle/FA : Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:08 pm  

Him wrote:

You seem very bitter... ...idiot.

Why? Because I have a different opinion to you?

You seem like a small minded gimp that gets annoyed and can't handle other people having a different view of things to themself.

Re: O/T Mcmanaman's tackle/FA : Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:13 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

Couldn't disagree with you more! I'm glad the RFL take the time to go over games and punish any foul play. The referees will make mistakes and get stuff wrong, that shouldn't mean that players should get away with foul play. On the Mcmanaman tackle, whether he went for the ball or not, he tackled the guys knee and could have ended his career.

I don't like the idea of the video panel looking over every game. Also premier league matches are all covered by a number of cameras for TV. Superleague gets two a week with the rest covered by usually one camera (suppose it's 3 if Catalans are at home) which impacts on it's affectiveness.

I agree there needs to be a safety net in case of anything really drastic and of course player safety is paramount. But not every incident in every game Ganson, Silverwood et al know what they are doing and get it right (when you take your blinkers off) most of the time.

Re: O/T Mcmanaman's tackle/FA : Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:19 pm  

Talent Spotter wrote:

Credit to the FA for not caving in to the sky sports news induced frenzy over the tackle. Wish they did it more often.

Exactly. If they did pander to Newcastle (Who are just mard because they lost the game) it would set such a dangerous precedent. It would essentially mean every game would have to be re-refereed after it has happened and any retrospective bookings taken into account. You would end up with 3 or 4 banned per game no doubt. If they reviewed the Everton v City game from the weekend for example, James Milner would have ended up with about 5 bookings.

The law that they can ban a player if the officials didn't see it is fine, it catches the elbows and punches in back play and lets the referees referee.

Having said that, the referee who didn't at least book McManaman should be stood down from the next round of fixtures and have his poor assessment score made public.

Re: O/T Mcmanaman's tackle/FA : Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:23 pm  

The Wigan lad hasn't gone in deliberately to hurt the player (despite Mark Lawrensen's comment to that effect on MOTD) however that he made contact or 'got' the ball isn't relevant. the tackle was dangerous, the knock on effect of which was clear to see.
Players of any sport need to take responsibility in recognising what is and what isn't going to be a marginal situation to the serious detriment of their fellow sportsmen. You can still take out your oppo without the need to be putting them in danger of injury

Re: O/T Mcmanaman's tackle/FA : Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:57 pm  

I was listening talk sport discussing it yesterday, they had a FA spokesman’s on who said something along the lines of, the FA policy of ‘If a match official saw the incident then they do not review it’. Was because the Match Officials overall get more decisions right than they get wrong and was to also ensure whenever possible match officials make decisions on the pitch at the time of incident, knowing that the ruling body supports them in all their decisions, and is not undermining their authority or rights to control the game, they also want to avoid match officials not making decisions knowing it will be reviewed later, especially when you consider what is seen in other sports where the Match Officials appear to take the easy option of putting incidents ‘On Report’.

Wonder which other sports he was refering to?

Re: O/T Mcmanaman's tackle/FA : Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:01 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

Makes me laugh the comments they have come out with though. They said if they took retrospective action on one tackle, they would be looking at all the tackles every Monday morning. The RFL do this on a much smaller budget than the FA? In all their "backing the referee" line they spout, they seemed to have forgotten one thing, player safety.

They don't "back the referee" though do they? On the one hand they will refuse to take retrospective action or not impose a ban when a red card has been shown in error. But then they'll stand down the official from the following week's matches. They make it fairly clear that he's being punished.

That said, I think there's a stronger case for leaving things alone if the ref takes no action than there is for imposing a ban if a red card is shown when clearly wrong. Automatic bans go against natural justice. Banning someone who shouldn't have been sent off in the first place is punishing someone wrongly, twice. And often a sending off is adequate punishment itself.