RFL Disciplinary

[Wes]

That tackle on Sam was a shocker, if it was one of our players that made the tackle they would be screwed to the wall.

Case Number ON/110/13
Name Eloi Pelissier
Club Catalans
Shirt Number 16
Match Wigan v Catalans
Competition Super League
Date 08/03/13
Incident considered High tackle in 72nd minute (Tomkins)
Decision No charge
Details of Charge / Reason for NF Player mistimes challenge however DVD is inconclusive as to nature and first point of contact.

[grahamwarrior]

If we had a referee that would do his job proper !then he should have been sent off ! What's the difference from that tackle and the one Micky mac did last season against saints

[exile in Tiger country]

Pathetic! It looked like a premeditated shoulder to the head to me. But it's Sam, any attack on Sam is, it seems, allowable.

[BriH]

If we had a referee that would do his job proper !then he should have been sent off ! What's the difference from that tackle and the one Micky mac did last season against saints

Didn't he sin-bin the wrong player?

[josie andrews]

If we had a referee that would do his job proper !then he should have been sent off ! What's the difference from that tackle and the one Micky mac did last season against saints

Didn't he sin-bin the wrong player?

Yes, Elima

[EDINBURGH-WARRIOR]

Sin Bined Elima for dissent .

http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?4216

[markill]

I was going to say I thought Elima was sin binned for giving lip to the TJ after he came on to indicate it should be a penalty. I think BEntham actually wasn't going to give anything.

The difference with Mickey Mac was it was a sky game so the coverage is better so they could look at more angles untill they found one that showed head contact. They didn't have any more angles than one long shot I would assume for Friday. Also, MM was late and off the ball, Sam still had the ball and mayeb the player thought he wasn't tackled.

Catalans don't fare well with the disciplinary normally so to say if it was one of ours they would get treated any worse is nonsense, unless it was MM because of his bad record they would assume bad contact was made I reckon - just as if it was Elima he would be treated differently to Pelissier I reckon.

[DaveO]

The difference with Mickey Mac was it was a sky game so the coverage is better so they could look at more angles untill they found one that showed head contact. They didn't have any more angles than one long shot I would assume for Friday. Also, MM was late and off the ball, Sam still had the ball and mayeb the player thought he wasn't tackled.

Well watching the highlights on the Super League show the idea they were unsighted is ridiculous.

As soon as I saw it on the replay I thought "ban" but not in any stupid "how dare they attack Sam" biased sort of way. Purely matter of fact it looked so clear cut.

Catalans don't fare well with the disciplinary normally so to say if it was one of ours they would get treated any worse is nonsense, unless it was MM because of his bad record they would assume bad contact was made I reckon - just as if it was Elima he would be treated differently to Pelissier I reckon.

What does Catalan don't fare well with the disciplinary have to do with it? The team wasn't in the dock, the player was.

And they can't assume anything from now on. If they argue they didn't ban him because they didn't see it they can't ban players with poorer records if they didn't see whatever they are supposed to have done.

[markill]

The difference with Mickey Mac was it was a sky game so the coverage is better so they could look at more angles untill they found one that showed head contact. They didn't have any more angles than one long shot I would assume for Friday. Also, MM was late and off the ball, Sam still had the ball and mayeb the player thought he wasn't tackled.

Well watching the highlights on the Super League show the idea they were unsighted is ridiculous.

As soon as I saw it on the replay I thought "ban" but not in any stupid "how dare they attack Sam" biased sort of way. Purely matter of fact it looked so clear cut.

Catalans don't fare well with the disciplinary normally so to say if it was one of ours they would get treated any worse is nonsense, unless it was MM because of his bad record they would assume bad contact was made I reckon - just as if it was Elima he would be treated differently to Pelissier I reckon.

What does Catalan don't fare well with the disciplinary have to do with it? The team wasn't in the dock, the player was.

And they can't assume anything from now on. If they argue they didn't ban him because they didn't see it they can't ban players with poorer records if they didn't see whatever they are supposed to have done.

The reason I bring up Catalans record is because I'm sick of people saying if it was a Wigan player doing it they would be be given a ban etc.

As much as the panel are inconsistent and don't always do their job properly (such as this incident), the suggestion of an inherent bias against Wigan just isn't justified. They are inconsistently for all, just like the referees are - I've stopped worrying about who is the referee because I don't think there is anything to suggest they are more against us than anyone else, they just make mistakes across the board (apart from Bentham whose unique record in 2010 when doing our games looks a bit suspicious)

[Owd Codger]

No evidence at many games in spite of a reserve referee being on the touchline at every game?