Micky Mac

[cpwigan]

Committed...possibly, late...yes...but round his head...absolutely!! We can argue the toss all week about being committed etc but it was way too high anyway! If he'd been late and hit him round his legs would we be having this conversation?!! Sending off whichever way it gets dressed up!

Not see any replays BUT many who have say first contact was with the shoulder. Unfortunately this is not junior or amateur RL and the players are coached / expected to make contact above the ball when making their hit / tackle.

To All IIRC Mac has taken Roby to the cleaners 3 times this season.

Just ask yourself why is it Roby is rated the best in England, not Mac??

We used to call Cunningham too but he was the best in his time. (We'd have had him in a heart beat, if we could).

you have to look at things more broadly.

I think Roby is a gud un. I wish he was ours.

Nowhere have I said Roby is not a good player BUT I am reminding people that he has been outplayed by Mac every time this season when they have faced each other. Yet we have some of our fans who seem to want to write Mac off for a sending off that our coach feels was unfair. Personally I can appreciate good / bad players from every team. KC was better than our hooker, better than Roby. Roby is an excellent player. James Graham was / is an excellent player BUT so is Micky Mac.

Ironically one of the posters rearing his head here wanted rid of Gaz Hock after he was sent off v Wire. This season never bad mouthed him once here albeit he has on RLfans. He frequently slated Lockers too. Now it seems Mac is his new whipping boy. Oddly he rates Rinaldi and Ah Van. I say no more.

[ian.birchall]

.Wigan are a much better team with him in it than out of it.Also it was nice to hear the saints supporters admit that we where the much better team despite the loss.

Give over, which home have you been let out of, stains were all over us all the game, their defence was killing us all game and their tactic of continually kicking the ball long over our dead ball line was well thought out as they were right in thinking their defence would keep us away from their try line if it was 80 yards away.
We got in 10 minutes late having spent rather more than 2 and a half hours getting to the game from Leeds as the M62 was closed up to Huddersfield and the congestion/confusion was appalling but watching the first 10 minutes on t'box suggested that our first try was against the run of play as they were all over us from the kick off.

[ian.birchall]

For my two penneth worth, MM is a cracking player and I'd want him in my side every day of the week. His form has dipped a bit recently but I would never regard him as a liability. He's just very aggressive and 9 times out of 10 we're lauding him for being so. We love a big hit or some aggressive play but when he gets it wrong he's a liability?? Please!!
He'll be the first to admit that it was an error and ok he probably deserved a red card."

Talk about a sinner come to Jesus, I thought you were going to blow a gasket at the time of the sending off, just hope the Chief Constable didn't see you in the crowd scenes.

[TrueBlueWarrior]

.Wigan are a much better team with him in it than out of it.Also it was nice to hear the saints supporters admit that we where the much better team despite the loss.

Give over, which home have you been let out of, stains were all over us all the game, their defence was killing us all game and their tactic of continually kicking the ball long over our dead ball line was well thought out as they were right in thinking their defence would keep us away from their try line if it was 80 yards away.
We got in 10 minutes late having spent rather more than 2 and a half hours getting to the game from Leeds as the M62 was closed up to Huddersfield and the congestion/confusion was appalling but watching the first 10 minutes on t'box suggested that our first try was against the run of play as they were all over us from the kick off.

Sorry Ian but was you at the same game as me? Stains started well but we defended well and then took a 6-0 lead which could have so easily been 12-0 but for a dubious ref decision. Then MM got sent off and yes for the rest of the 1st half they were again the better team, but only 12-6.
Easy saying it now but with 13 we would have destroyed them. 2nd half started and we dominated for 20-25 minutes with a man less equalling the scores at 12-12, until Sam missed placed a pass due to a knock on his wrist and they took an undeserved lead. We were obviously tired so they got a few more easy points, but we still scored 18 with 12 men against their defence which was 'killing us'. They only scored 26 points despite being 'all over us all the game'. Which Coach seemed most content after the game? For me it was SW easily because he knows with 13 men we would have won at a canter and MR knows that against 12 men they still found it very difficult. The other way round it would have been 30+ difference not 8!! If we play Stains again then I guarentee with 13 men aside we will win very comfortably, they are very average and it showed Friday night. Who is more concerned about meeting each other again in the playoffs, the answer clearly is Stains.

[wiggydoran]

not sure what our defense will be at the RFL on Wednesday.

In the stadium i thought it was not that late. He looked Committed. When i reviewed it on the tape it was not the lateness of the tackle but how high the tackle was that i think got him sent off.

I am not sure we will get them back this year.

Players make mistakes Micky Mac has made a few this year. I still think he a brilliant player and is one of the best players in the league. Still we have an international hooker to step into the breach!

Comments on Roby - Over rated. Highlights i see of him he looks a good player but in the flesh this year hes looked average. Against 12 men he should have made more of an impact. Maybe its because he can only play effectively once his team mates win the floor. Saints have not won the floor against us all season apart from the last 20 mins on Friday.

[pieaterinLeigh]

I've played the game and also enjoyed being an avid spectator for most of my life but I do have a few points from having read this thread.

It's physical, contact based and should always be so as the game would lose a large element of its appeal if it continues to move towards football's example of appealing for everything and play acting to ensure referee's decisions go the way the player hopes. We revel in the fact this is a mans game and our boys get stitches and replace dislocated joints before rejoining the game without need for fanfare.

But let's be clear, foul play is foul play irrespective of which jersey the player is wearing, we are up in arms when our players are blind sided, hit late or punched and we can't be so myopic to ignore when our own do wrong. It was a head high hit with the arm not shoulder and was after the ball had gone, where is the defence against that being foul play?

The second issue is how should that be punished? IMHO the referee got it right in line with the laws of the game, yes it spoiled the game for the spectators but surely that's Mickey's fault for committing the offence rather than the referee's for punishing it? Any loss against that lot always hurts but we as fans need to point our frustrations in the right direction. While this Might not be written in the rules anywhere, I'm all for letting rugby league players regulate themselves during the game by putting the opposition right and showing each other who's boss, but a cheap late shot doesn't count in that category in my eyes.

In some ways the sending off might be a blessing? Had Childs not punished it immediately then the RFL would certainly have come back with more than the ban he will now get. Wigan can (as Wane has stated) use the argument that he as already effectively served a 1 game ban and that should be sufficient. Leaving Mickey to be free for play off games, his b0llocking off the coach and ears ringing with the advice to choose his shots better.

There seems to be a lot of wailing on here about victimisation of Wigan from the RFL and referees and yes there are examples where other team's payers have been treated more leniently than ours but administrators and match officials are human and therefore are subjective, we have been successful over a long period of time and that does sometimes count against you in any sport. Even if we are being victimised, the louder we complain the happier it will make the people doing it and encourage them to do it more!

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

(not trying to Bible bash just bring a little common sense)

For me Micky is a very good player who uses the physical side of his game to become an extra forward who also delivers the ball from dummy half, rather than Roby who is more elusive in his running and almost an extra half back even though they play with the same number on. Therefore, theres no real debate about who's best they are just very different players who each offer diffrent positives to their teams.

Can we be honest in saying that if Roby was a Warrior and Micky a Stain the majority of opinion would be reversed?

That being said, we are a better team with Micky playing and can any of the detractors offer a better alternative? Our style of play suits a physical hooker given we have creative ball players in the halves, at full back and at loose forward, for these reasons I for one wouldn't change Mickey. I would however tell him to pick his moments to bully the opposition better as he has no need to resort to cheap, late shots ( even against that lot!)

[wiggydoran]

Micky Mac disciplinary record this year - what he as been cited for:

Saints on 06/04/12 - Dangerous Lift in 57th minute (Wilkin) - No charge - Player lifts opponent’s legs in the tackle, however is contribution from teammate and opponent lands arms first. MRP - NFA

Catalan on 09/06/12 - High tackle in 71st Minute (Baitieri).- No charge - Tackle is high however arm is below horizontal and initial contact is with chest/shoulder. Penalty sufficient. MRP - NFA

Catalan on 09/06/12 High tackle in 34th minute (Paea) - No charge - Tackle is high however opponent is falling in tackle. Penalty suffient. MRP - NFA

Bradford on 29/06/12 - Punching in the 55th minute (Elima)- Charge - 1 match (Early Guilty Plea offered and accepted - No suspension however player ineligible to use Early Guilty Plea for 12 months)

Leeds on 14/07/12 - Dangerous contact in 26th minute (Sinfield)- No charge - Player tackles player held in tackle however first contact is around shorts. MRP - NFA

Hull KR on 02/09/12 - Dangerous tackle in the 9th minute (Dobson) - No charge - Player makes grip around opponents head however releases before undue pressure is applied. Penalty sufficient.

Saints on 07/09/12 ??????? TBC

[exile in Tiger country]

He was late, but he was committed to the tackle, he made contact with the shoulder first, all that is my opinion, some will agree some will disagree. What we all want is consitency.
Dragons V Bulls on Saturday, 17th minute or thereabouts, Platt makes an almost identical tackle on Dureau, the only major difference being Platt wasn't moving at speed and may have been able to pull out.
No action from the officilas, no comment from the prosecutors, judge and jury on SLY TV.
Just give us consistency from the officials, that's all we ask.

I have a simple solution:
Next season EVERY penalty given for a high shot should result in a sin binning.
The first couple of weeks would probably see teams reduced to seven playing six at times, but it would stop the high tackles.
No more "on report", if it results in a penalty, you sit down for ten minutes, no if's or but's, end of!

And in my opinion Mickey Mc is the best hooker we've had since we let Terry Newton go, and has a similar agressive style.

[x Wigan Warrior x]

I've played the game and also enjoyed being an avid spectator for most of my life but I do have a few points from having read this thread.

It's physical, contact based and should always be so as the game would lose a large element of its appeal if it continues to move towards football's example of appealing for everything and play acting to ensure referee's decisions go the way the player hopes. We revel in the fact this is a mans game and our boys get stitches and replace dislocated joints before rejoining the game without need for fanfare.

But let's be clear, foul play is foul play irrespective of which jersey the player is wearing, we are up in arms when our players are blind sided, hit late or punched and we can't be so myopic to ignore when our own do wrong. It was a head high hit with the arm not shoulder and was after the ball had gone, where is the defence against that being foul play?

The second issue is how should that be punished? IMHO the referee got it right in line with the laws of the game, yes it spoiled the game for the spectators but surely that's Mickey's fault for committing the offence rather than the referee's for punishing it? Any loss against that lot always hurts but we as fans need to point our frustrations in the right direction. While this Might not be written in the rules anywhere, I'm all for letting rugby league players regulate themselves during the game by putting the opposition right and showing each other who's boss, but a cheap late shot doesn't count in that category in my eyes.

In some ways the sending off might be a blessing? Had Childs not punished it immediately then the RFL would certainly have come back with more than the ban he will now get. Wigan can (as Wane has stated) use the argument that he as already effectively served a 1 game ban and that should be sufficient. Leaving Mickey to be free for play off games, his b0llocking off the coach and ears ringing with the advice to choose his shots better.

There seems to be a lot of wailing on here about victimisation of Wigan from the RFL and referees and yes there are examples where other team's payers have been treated more leniently than ours but administrators and match officials are human and therefore are subjective, we have been successful over a long period of time and that does sometimes count against you in any sport. Even if we are being victimised, the louder we complain the happier it will make the people doing it and encourage them to do it more!

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

(not trying to Bible bash just bring a little common sense)

For me Micky is a very good player who uses the physical side of his game to become an extra forward who also delivers the ball from dummy half, rather than Roby who is more elusive in his running and almost an extra half back even though they play with the same number on. Therefore, theres no real debate about who's best they are just very different players who each offer diffrent positives to their teams.

Can we be honest in saying that if Roby was a Warrior and Micky a Stain the majority of opinion would be reversed?

That being said, we are a better team with Micky playing and can any of the detractors offer a better alternative? Our style of play suits a physical hooker given we have creative ball players in the halves, at full back and at loose forward, for these reasons I for one wouldn't change Mickey. I would however tell him to pick his moments to bully the opposition better as he has no need to resort to cheap, late shots ( even against that lot!)

:eusa2: :eusa2: :eusa2: :eusa2:

[East Stand Faithful]

According to Phil Wilkinson he has been cited for a grade C offence (1-3 game ban) and his hearing is Tuesday.