Newton-2 Match Ban

[Alex the Warrior]

Can't say i know how you get a knee injury that will allegedly keep the player out for 6 weeks, from a high tackle. Anybody with any grace (i.e. not Moaning Millward) would be feeling pleased not to have any players banned themselves after Friday.

Wilkin should know all about high tackles given his appalling assault on Deacon earlier this season

[ian.birchall]

Must agree with Welsh Warriors' amazement at how soon the likes of Sculthorpe, Hooper etc come back from season ending injuries, lets see how long Wilkin takes.
Must say that I am surprised that no suggestion yet of any appeal from Wigan yet about the length of the ban

[MrsLam]

GeoffN posted:
I'd need to examine them closely...very closely to tell what made them. It's your own fault for tasting sooooo delicious!

What is it they say, no comment?

[robjoenz]

I think Terry got what he deserved really, I don't see how anyone can say he has been hard done by. Although the tackle may have brushed Wilkin's shoulder it was still very high and late, you've got to get punished for these things, the RFL have done the right thing in my opinion. We'd be very annoyed had they done the same and got away with it (e.g. Feaunati in CC Final on Brown). Could say it was Wilkin getting his comupance but he was banned for his foul on Deacon.

I think he damaged his knee because when he went out cold his body relaxed which caused him to fall without control. Unfortunately it caused him to twist his knee. Something similar happened when a Leeds player hit Nathan Wood a few weeks back.

On Millward's ramblings, I think he'd be pretty pleased had it been Wilkin knocking Newton out after-all it's what he instructs his players to do. We were paying close attention to Fozzard the other night, he was absolutely s****, he dropped the ball about three times in the first half hour and was only on the park to try and put Farrell off his game, seemed to have the opposite affect though. I wonder if Milly saw the two penalties given away by Mason in the first minute for head shots!

I also found it funny how several whining Stains fans wrote letters to League Express complaining about Terry Newton's tackle and making out he'd got away with it before the case had even been heard.

[MrsLam]

We'd be very annoyed had they done the same and got away with it (e.g. Feaunati in CC Final on Brown).

What punishment was given to him for that tackle on Brown?

The thing that's annoying me is the fact that ONLY Newton has got caught. There were a lot of high tackles during that game and it certainly wasn't half and half and if saints weren't going high, they were tackling with their hands between the legs but have any of them been banned of fined for those professional fouls? Lam is regularly tackled late but nothing is done about that, and nothing was done on Friday but because it's Newton and referees have certain players that they have to watch, he's called up before the RFL. On a slow motion of course the tackle will look very late but in real time it wasn't that bad, neither was it that high really, the initial impact being his shoulder. Like somebodies already said, we've all seen a lot worse, so again where is the consistency in refereeing?

And why have the RFL not re watched the whole match and called up some of the saints players for their tackling and play of the ball? They have the power to do it.

[robjoenz]

MrsLam posted:
What punishment was given to him for that tackle on Brown?

That was exactly my point! It angers us that nothing got done when it should have done, a similar situation, going off the shoulder and into the face.

I totally agree that Cummings should refer dirty play from games that he reviews, but for some reason he only looks at his referees performances. The thing with Newtons tackle was that it was bad whereas most of Saints were less dangerous but happened more frequently and unfortunately with Sky you miss a few of the events in back-play/off the ball.

I didn't think Ian Smith had a bad game really on Friday, Saints were found out for their dirty tactics, warned Hooper for hitting Lam late (which, in fairness, worked because he had much more time for the kick after that), he sin binned for repeat offences and used the on-report as it was initially designed. I don't think we can blame the referee but we could do with some after match analyser looking at repeat offenders and coming up with some points and suspension system to try and eradicate such play from our game.

[MrsLam]

That was exactly my point!

I was asking 'cause I couldn't remember if anything had been done about it, but that's just my point too. I wouldn't say any of their high tackles were any less dangerous, maybe we were just lucky and that's irrelevant anyway, if it's higher than the shoulders it should be on report at least which is what happened to Newton.

[robjoenz]

You can't compare tackles relative to each other though. Newton's tackle judged by itself was bad and he got the punishment that fits the offence and as you point out there were many offences by Saints that although they were penalised they will not get a suspension for.

This is where the points system whereby a high tackle would give you (theoretical example) 1 point and when you get to 10 points you are suspended. This would allow for the odd accidental high tackle but punish repeat offenders that may be forced to think about their style of tackling.

[MrsLam]

robjoenz posted:
You can't compare tackles relative to each other though.

Why not, because when you do compare tackles you realise that saints actually did a lot more of the high tackling than we did. A 2 match ban isn't too bad but it does mean he'll miss Leeds, a game we need all our big players for. I just don't think it was anywhere near as bad as the likes of Millward and Stevo are making out.

Also think that if your gonna have a points system on it, then the number should be a lot less than 10! You'd be allowing the likes of Fozzard to really do some damage and keep thinking, "Oh it's ok, I can use my completely over the top bandaged arm 9 more times."
If players know they have some sort of limit, then it probably won't make a difference to their style of play.

[robjoenz]

MrsLam posted:
Why not, because when you do compare tackles you realise that saints actually did a lot more of the high tackling than we did.

Also think that if your gonna have a points system on it, then the number should be a lot less than 10! You'd be allowing the likes of Fozzard to really do some damage and keep thinking, "Oh it's ok, I can use my completely over the top bandaged arm 9 more times."
If players know they have some sort of limit, then it probably won't make a difference to their style of play.

You have to look at each tackle on it's own merits (if you can use a positive term in a negative way?!). I think although Saints commited a lot more fouls than us Newton's was probably the worst of the lot. When a high shot knocks a player out it is something serious and a ban acts as a deterent. Can you think of an instance that posed more threat to any player's health on the pitch that night?

As I said using 10 points was just an example but atleast it would be some sort of deterent because as we've both mentioned a lot of small Saint's infringements added up, especially Fozzards goading of Farrell.