pieaterinLeigh wrote:
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?
Technically you could argue he never actually connected with his arm on the head (his arm hit the shoulder first then went over it), the Saints player milked it for all it was worth and MM was committed to the tackle with the player ducking into it.
That is, having watched it, the mitigation I would use.
However you seem be labouring under a misapprehension - that "foul play is foul play". If that were true there would be at least one sending off per game.
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?
Given no damage was done you have to ask does the punishment fit the crime? Again technically all head high shots are red cards. Few are. So yes I blame the referee for over reacting. It was early on in the game and he had several options open to him. There is nothing in the rules to say he had to send him off. I don't think it warranted a sending off given how other head-high shots are dealt with.
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.
I don't think you need to let players self-regulate anyway but that and the result are not the issue.
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.
He has been charged with a grade C offence. Minimum ban 2 games max 3. Regardless of how bad the tackle was if he is found guilty we will have to get to GF final for him to play again if he is lucky.
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!
Consistency is what is asked for and there isn't any. It's not "wailing".
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)
It still comes across as holier than thou.
Can we be honest in saying that if Roby was a Warrior and Micky a Stain the majority of opinion would be reversed?
My honest opinion is were roles reversed and had Roby
not been sent off the tackle would have been forgotten about by now.
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!)
You are making the massive assumption it was a deliberate cheap shot and not a mis-timed poorly executed tackle. You have decided he intended to injure the player in a way guaranteed to get him a red card. I think that is big assumption.
