Our fate was sealed last week

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Rob, totally serperate query. I seem to remember in the sands of time in my deteriorating old brain that the rules for the ingoals are different than the field of play. I always thought that in your in goal you could pass forward legally. Is that right? If so why can you knock on in your ingoal?

You can't be offside in your own in-goal... so if the ball is kicked forward by a defending player in-goal and picked up by a team-mate in front it's play on.

Forward passes and knock-ons aren't allowed.

[robjoenz]

Wigan_forever19 85 posted:
see "interpretation" there should be a rule and thats it no interpretation required, same with all this bull about surrender and dominant, it should be "held" give 3-5 secs from then, a penalty if the players not released

3-5 seconds? Do you know how long that is?

What about when you go down from SL to NL1 and then further down to amateur. What about when players tire towards the end of a half/game. Or when the weather conditions are bad and play isn't as quick.

Surrender and dominant aren't bull. Dominant favours strong defence and surrender gives no benefit to surrendering to the tackle so they can't get an unfair, quick play-the-ball.

[ian.birchall]

cpwigan posted:
Rob, KC knew exactly what he was doing. I hate 3rd men coming in when a player is tackled. Experienced players know a player held is unable to relax their head and thus vulnerable. He simply went looking to make contact with Pats head with whatever he could. The part of his body was almost irrelevant.

Some players particularly those with past players in their families are knowledgable in the dark arts of yesteryear rugby.

100% in agreement. KC knew he had a 'free hit' and took it. Any third man in a tackle who lays the opposition player out should get an automatic ban whatever Robjonnz thinks, glad he isn't refereering our games!!!

[robjoenz]

On most occasions third man in is to slow down the subsequent play the ball. Nothing wrong with that. Every rugby player wants to legitimately hurt their opposition. Again nothing wrong with that. However, as soon as it's Saints player suddenly it should be outlawed. Had it been a wigan player people would have defended it based on the fact Richards fell into it. I bet there are few Saints fans that think there was anything wrong with it

[butt monkey]

robjoenz posted:
On most occasions third man in is to slow down the subsequent play the ball. Nothing wrong with that. Every rugby player wants to legitimately hurt their opposition. Again nothing wrong with that. However, as soon as it's Saints player suddenly it should be outlawed. Had it been a wigan player people would have defended it based on the fact Richards fell into it. I bet there are few Saints fans that think there was anything wrong with it

You are kidding - right?

[butt monkey]

robjoenz posted:
Every rugby player wants to legitimately hurt their opposition. Again nothing wrong with that.

And it is the referee's responsibility to ensure that cheap shots are penalised and players who commit foul play are removed from the field of play. Rarely do they carry that out. (Far too much reliance for "on report").

KC's effort was a cheap shot, no attempt at slowing the ptb down. Otherwise they would have "lay on" Richards longer than they did. This didn't happen because Stains realised they had gained possession. Therefore wanted to carry on playing. Hence the penalty - which many at the Wigan end thought was for us.

I, like one or two others on here have been watching for many years. We know the difference between aiding a tackle and cheap shots - which Cunningham's was, nothing to do with Wigan bias - end of. It is disgraceful to even intimate it, you resent referee's being described as biased and offer contradictions, yet refuse to accept our complaints and dismiss them as biased - how fairs that!

[robjoenz]

Three man tackles are common place and totally legitimate. The only difference in this case was that Richards was caught in the face. Should have been a penalty but nothing more. Psycho and GeoffN have also shared this opinion on another thread

[robjoenz]

Three man tackles are common place and totally legitimate. The only difference in this case was that Richards was caught in the face. Should have been a penalty but nothing more. Psycho and GeoffN have also shared this opinion on another thread

[butt monkey]

robjoenz posted:
Three man tackles are common place and totally legitimate.

Never said they weren't!

robjoenz posted:
The only difference in this case was that Richards was caught in the face.

With an intended "tackle" to hurt, rather than anything else. Richards was hardly in a position to offload or make more yardage.

robjoenz posted:
Should have been a penalty but nothing more. Psycho and GeoffN have also shared this opinion on another thread

That's exactly what they are - opinions, just like yours. Doesn't make them correct either. Look at KC's body language and hand, it was clenched into a fist, if Richards had gone down a fraction of a second earlier, he could have picked up a serious jaw injury.

[robjoenz]

Right... Both of our opinions are that it was to do with the timing of the tackle