Disciplinary

[TrueBlueWarrior]

Citations are irrelevant when no charge is made.

Why? Surely it means that they think there is a chance 4 of our players did something wrong that could warrant further punishment yet none from Hull, is that a fair assessment of the game in terms of what could have needed further punishment and what couldn't?

[markill]

Citations are irrelevant when no charge is made.

Why? Surely it means that they think there is a chance 4 of our players did something wrong that could warrant further punishment yet none from Hull, is that a fair assessment of the game in terms of what could have needed further punishment and what couldn't?

What I should have said is citations without charges mean nothing more than something not being cited. Players/clubs aren't punished in any way for just a citation. The number of citations doesn't go against them in any actual charges. Moaning about citations that don't result in charges is just finding something to moan about. What actual difference would it have made of there was a one liner on the website saying a Hull player had a high tackle that was penalty sufficient or whatever? There's still no charge.

Every game is reviewed. Any incident put on report in the game or picked out on review goes to the MRP for second opinion. Any that goes to them is recorded for transparency. That's all a citation with no charge is. It's effectively the same as the first reviewer deciding for themselves there is no further action needed.

If the tackle on Sarginson warranted a charge then that's a different story (not watched the game back!), but it is missed because someone did their job wrong and not because someone was just trying to get Wigan players banned. We as fans are considerably more biased than anyone who is part of the match officials and disciplinary process, surely you accept that as true?

[TrueBlueWarrior]

Citations are irrelevant when no charge is made.

Why? Surely it means that they think there is a chance 4 of our players did something wrong that could warrant further punishment yet none from Hull, is that a fair assessment of the game in terms of what could have needed further punishment and what couldn't?

What I should have said is citations without charges mean nothing more than something not being cited. Players/clubs aren't punished in any way for just a citation. The number of citations doesn't go against them in any actual charges. Moaning about citations that don't result in charges is just finding something to moan about. What actual difference would it have made of there was a one liner on the website saying a Hull player had a high tackle that was penalty sufficient or whatever? There's still no charge.

Every game is reviewed. Any incident put on report in the game or picked out on review goes to the MRP for second opinion. Any that goes to them is recorded for transparency. That's all a citation with no charge is. It's effectively the same as the first reviewer deciding for themselves there is no further action needed.

If the tackle on Sarginson warranted a charge then that's a different story (not watched the game back!), but it is missed because someone did their job wrong and not because someone was just trying to get Wigan players banned. We as fans are considerably more biased than anyone who is part of the match officials and disciplinary process, surely you accept that as true?

I try, I really do!!

[SJ]

Now be fair. Sarginson was obviously cited for trying to break Houghton's arm with his nose.
Lucky to get off with no match-ban: broken nose being deemed punishment enough.