robjoenz posted:
I too have just rewatched the game in full for the first time.
I'll start with the Cunningham incident. I believe now even more than yesterday that he will get no case to answer. What I hadn't realised until today was that the first two men in the tackle had not covered the ball so Cunningham had every reason to go in there.
The following 6 frames are taken from the real time recording of the game.
You can see from the first frame that had Cunningham hit him then he would have struck the ball carrying arm.
Now consider that there are 27 frames in 1 second of footage. Therefore, these 6 frames take up approximately a quarter of a second. Based on this I think it unfair to expect Cunningham to realise that due to Richards falling in the tackle he would contact his head.
Had the tackle been made in line with his arm in the first frame he would have had every chance of dislodging the ball legally.
Ridiculous, now your trying to claim he attempted to dislodge the ball. Your not Daniel Anderson in disguise (or a relative) are you?.
It is pathetic to even suggest that Richard's would have attempted an offload in his own 20, and under such heavy traffic also.
Just accept it for what it was, rather than a pathetic attempt to justify another referee's mistake.
I suppose you could say that the first penalty of the match was a bit pedantic. Equally, there was no need for Leuleui to put his knees into the ruck.
Regarding grapples; I agree that he allowed a few grapples to slide, from both sides.
High shots
The majority of the high hits happened in the first 24 minutes of the game, after that they seemed to sort themselves out. Obviously the players took the message that they weren't going to be accepted. There were hardly any penalties for foul play in the second half and only really the Cunningham hit that should have been given.
Injuries
I'm pretty sure he played on when Fielden and Richards were down because he didn't realise the intent of their injuries. Fielden lay there at the side of the tackle, it occassionally happens that a player takes a knock and lays at the side of the ruck. His focus then changes to the resulting play, similarly with the Richards incident.
SL -v- amateur
The difference between the amateur game and professional game is that on Monday morning amateur players need to be in work to get paid. SL players get paid regardless. Coaches want play to continue unless there is a major issue, like a head injury (read above paragraph before comparing to Fielden/Richards). For this reason SL referees are told to play on unless there is a potentially serious injury, amateur referees are told to stop play for all knocks to the head or possible injuries and referees on kids games are told to stop whenever someone suffers a minor knock.
Grapples
Referees are aware of differing levels of grappling. As a boxing fan you may know more than them though. I (personally) see two types of grapples, those grappling the body and those grappling the neck and head. The latter should be penalised in my opinion if they present a dangerous situation.
Colbon try attempt
I wasn't sure on the night but having watched it again tonight he got it spot on. If he was sure of what he saw then why use the video referee? On the other hand, if the technology is there then use it. However, some think the video referee is overused.
Cunningham pass
Look at his hands... nothing wrong with the pass.
butt monkey posted:
Ridiculous, now your trying to claim he attempted to dislodge the ball. Your not Daniel Anderson in disguise (or a relative) are you?.
It is pathetic to even suggest that Richard's would have attempted an offload in his own 20, and under such heavy traffic also.
Just accept it for what it was, rather than a pathetic attempt to justify another referee's mistake.
You're right, it would be silly for Richards to offload in his own 20... though not impossible.
It is more likely he wanted to dislodge the ball. It happens all the time, especially in the NRL. CPWigan was talking about it not so long ago, two men tackle the ball carriers arms and the third man in hits him hard to dislodge the ball. This would have given Saints the ball within Wigan's 20, a very strong position.
Try and accept my opinion is different to yours and have some respect for that.
robjoenz posted:
Try and accept my opinion is different to yours and have some respect for that.
I actually DO have respect for your opinion robjoenz and I FULLY back you up on what you have said in your previous posts.
I am not having a go here, but I watched the tape today and it seemed like Klein didn't have as badder game as people are making out.
I came away from the game absolutely steaming about the decisions he gave, but I watched it today and I have to say I raised by eyebrows about how wrong I was to be absolutely scathing with him.
gpartin posted:
Rob, would the fact Cunningham's fist is clenched have any bearing on his intent? (I have seen much worse tackles btw and I agree it wasn't late)
Hmm... difficult one that... it depends on the intent in my opinion. I think that Cunningham went for the ball carrying arm in which case there'd be no problem. If he'd gone for the kidneys then I'd say it should be penalised.
wigan/pier posted:
Maybe it's me but when a player is held (as he was) isn't it Ileagle to try to dislodge the ball? ie two man tackle... :conf:
...yet another of those "interpretation" scenarios that Rob loves so much - did the ball just come loose or was it deliberately knocked out? Fortunately all referees take mind reading courses so that they can judge intent.
Rob thanks for putting those freeze frames pics up. I actually think they are more dammning than when I watched it on video. My initial impression was that he had kept his arm tighter to his body. On a serious point watch any Adrian Morley big hit. Every one is illegal IMO.
Pat had broke away from one tackler but was still held by Flannery. KC comes from the left to the right, he is facing the full exposed open side of Pat. So he has a huge target area. as he gets close according to your frames, his arm is getting further and further away from his body and all the time the fist is clenched. Despite being open he makes no attempt to go for the ball. Instead he misses it completely whilst fully balanced and connects spot on with Richards head.
My understanding of coaching methods would suggest logic says 2 things. The first is that players are taught to hold up ball carriers. 'Dance' with them. This actually gains the defensive side valuable time to regroup for the next tackle. The other would be to smother the ball and to do so you would be passive because flannery was taking Pat down anyway.
KCs only defence is that Richards fell to one knee
You want my honest opinion. It was exactly the sort of nasty trick that Terry Newton would do playing for Wigan or whomever. Pros would call it a cheap shot.
