Micky Mac

[cpwigan]

CP - So you believe that he didn't make contact with Lafrnchis head?

Mike I do not know exactly what contact he made or whether he hit his shoulder first and then his head. He eventually made some contact with his head but it was clearly not severe given Laffranchi was fine after 'milking it' (which most players do). The images are not great for making a clear decision.

Here is a question. Do players quite often make contact with a ball carriers head when tackling them?

Several head high challenges tonight Mike. We even had an off the ball late tackle albeit not high but the punishment? A penalty. Tonight and in ever game hereafter you will see high challenges go unpunished.

Not you Mike but to see Mac villified by some of our so called supporters beggars belief. I have like others watched this kid come through from the age of 16. He always had an awesome tackling technique. Unfortunately when you line up an opponent for a big hit at chest high you can easily go wrong. Yet Mac adapted and changed his tackle technique. For a front row forward Mac IMO is a very clean player but he puts a hell of a lot of effort into his defenceand yes it can go wrong, rarely though. Whatsmore, Mac is now a 'shit' on the pitch. People compare him to Terry Newton. God bless him Terry was a 'shit' and wanted fights. Hocky is a 'shit' / increasingly less so but he is happy to engage opponents.

Mac will not walk away and we expect him not to. We, the fans, our coach, the team are openly asking our forwards to dominate physically their opponent, we want them to get in the faces and give big hits, soften up the opposition. Whenever they fail to we get umpteen posters here, everywhere ridiculing our forwards as soft etc.

You saw high and late challenges tonight sometimes by 'shits' like SA and all go will unpunished yet our so called supporters will say not a problem, fair.

If we get to Old Trafford I would send Mac up first and to a man I would hope our players ignore, turn their backs on the Fat Controller & Other RFL Officials.

So you are arguing (by implication) that this tackle was no different to any other tackle where incidental contact was made with an opponents head - i.e. not a delibrate high tackle?

Straight question - having seen the incident live and on replays, what do you think would be the right on field decision, and what (if required) would be the correct citing/disaplinary verdict?

[jolleymike]

SA went looking for heads tonight, but only once did silver wood pull him up, this led to a warriors try.

But I doubt very much that SA will be sited by the RFL board on Monday.

I ave to give silverwood credit for tonight's game, he let the match flow which suited Wigan.

Last week child was hell bent on giving penalties, mainly on the say so of ganson, I just hope that child doesn't ge a lookin at any of the next Wigan matches.

[Panchitta Marra]

Am I correct in saying that as we finished 6th in the U20's competition, their season is now completed.
No outstanding play-off games that Micky could be put forward for to serve up one of his match ban games.
Whats happened to our u20's this year, seems a poor season in comparisson to previous years achievements.

[cpwigan]

Am I correct in saying that as we finished 6th in the U20's competition, their season is now completed.
No outstanding play-off games that Micky could be put forward for to serve up one of his match ban games.
Whats happened to our u20's this year, seems a poor season in comparisson to previous years achievements.

The U20s results come very much second to player development. Several players, the best go on dual contract and U18s with great potential are blooded. You can only play 3 above age players anyhow.

Recent results with a full squad have been excellent and we are in the play offs. IIRC we play Salford next, maybe this weekend. The fact we finished so low gives usd extra games so maybe it could benefit Mac, not sure. The U18s have finished, they have no play off system.

[cpwigan]

Nobody has mentioned how Mac got 4 matches for contact with his forearm/upper arm (we know his fist was not involved as that was some way pst Laffranchi. He may have ven made first contact with the back of Laffranchi and the arm comes around YET;

2 Minutes later Flash gets Lockers with a real cheap high shot that was labelled a haymaker by Finch. Not even a penalty / not even a mention by the RFL.

Same crime, totally different treatment.

The RFL are not even sure what happens with Mac if you read their report and are assuming anything / everything.

Why was Flash treated different to Mac?

[cpwigan]

How can you say one was worse than the other? Therein lies the crux of the issue. None were that bad but the moment you start waving a red card then you leave yourself nowhere to go but to dismiss, dismiss, dismiss.

Mac wasn't bad and neither were the others

[markill]

How can you say one was worse than the other? Therein lies the crux of the issue. None were that bad but the moment you start waving a red card then you leave yourself nowhere to go but to dismiss, dismiss, dismiss.

Mac wasn't bad and neither were the others

I'm with you on the fist thing. I think I brought it up before. Although that doens't condone the tackle, the issue is on e of consistency and not whether MM's takcle was bad.
On consistency, and the 'one worse than the other' point you make...well..this is why the ban was upheld according to the disciplinary panel (bold emphasis added by me):

...The charge is one of a reckless high tackle and the club admit the tackle was careless. The committee have viewed the incident on DVD clearly and that there are aggravating features to this tackle, the tackle is high and late with the potential for serious injury...The committee feel that this tackle was totally unacceptable as he has hit the player around the head. The committee note that the player’s record of 3 referrals and have to take all these factors into account. Therefore the appeal is upheld and the 3 match suspension and a £300 fine stands http://therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?4050

Based on that I would expect to see 2 match bans to every player referred with this type of offence grading and 3 match bans for every player who has had a previous referral to the disciplinary committee.

[Lazy J]

How can you say one was worse than the other? Therein lies the crux of the issue. None were that bad but the moment you start waving a red card then you leave yourself nowhere to go but to dismiss, dismiss, dismiss.

Mac wasn't bad and neither were the others

I'm with you on the fist thing. I think I brought it up before. Although that doens't condone the tackle, the issue is on e of consistency and not whether MM's takcle was bad.
On consistency, and the 'one worse than the other' point you make...well..this is why the ban was upheld according to the disciplinary panel (bold emphasis added by me):

...The charge is one of a reckless high tackle and the club admit the tackle was careless. The committee have viewed the incident on DVD clearly and that there are aggravating features to this tackle, the tackle is high and late with the potential for serious injury...The committee feel that this tackle was totally unacceptable as he has hit the player around the head. The committee note that the player’s record of 3 referrals and have to take all these factors into account. Therefore the appeal is upheld and the 3 match suspension and a £300 fine stands http://therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?4050

Thats the bit that i like, surely they mean the original decision is upheld, because if ther appeal is upheld wouldnt he be allowed to play? then again its the RFl and they make it up as they go along

[cpwigan]

I managed to see SL Extra with better angles. Mac first makes contact with the back/shoulder of Laffranchi and YES then he makes contact with the side of the face of Laffranchi.

How many time did people escape any charge because the first contact was chest high?

I also LOL at the suggestion he had the whole body to aim at. No Pro player is coached to aim below ball height / chest/upper shoulder.

[markill]

Thats the bit that i like, surely they mean the original decision is upheld, because if ther appeal is upheld wouldnt he be allowed to play? then again its the RFl and they make it up as they go along

Brilliant - can't believe I missed that!!