WiganWarriorsFans.com

hello all i would just like to know what is the ruling on the penalty that lead to liam farrell being sin binned. Liam put a late tackle on maguire around the 40m in the leeds half yet the penalty was given where pat caught the ball.
Surely the penalty should of been way back in the leeds half as what would of happened if the ball went straight out of play on the full from the kick ? would sinfield of had to take the two from the stands ? :conf:

It's a stupid rule. The penalty taken from where the ball is caught. Imagine if Richards got a 60 metre punt downfield 1 metre from the leeds line and we get a penalty? no chance! Farrell was committed there was no way of getting out of it. a sin binning? I dont know why? Leeds had the advantage of many many metres upfield which would, in my book, cancel out a sinbinning. The penalty should be where the offence happened. If the ball went out on the full where would it be taken?

Bentham is like Frodo who's just had his ring destroyed.

it is ridiculous :conf: surely the penalty should be awarded where the incident took place but probably another diabolical rule from the RFL

I mean, this sort of challenge happens several times a match. What was Farrell meant to do? step aside, wave his hand and offer McGuire a nice run up for a decent kick, then applaud him as he runs past? no, he's challenging for the ball and was as committed as Peacock was on Sam at the end... ridiculous.

this isn't the first time wev'e had decisions not go our way :conf: its happened all season but its just not affected us because luckily wev'e had a big enough lead for it not to bother us. Alibiert last week was awful aswell these referees are supposed to be getting better but there getting worse !!

pieater-alex wrote:It was a very harsh decision indeed. Farrell was NOT that late. He was committed. He was in mid-air and could not stop. In games like that kick pressure was vital. The referee's need to take this into account. I expect every late hit on the kicker now to be sin binned.

Too much common sense there Alex

To be fair the NRL brought the ruling in and Cummings followed suit. Unfortunately, with anything Cummings and his clowns do they never apply common sense and allow interpretation / judgement.

Farrell was commited on a wet day. One commentator said he could have avoided the Leeds player. Erm easier said than done BUT did iot do anmy damage or was likey to NO

Kick a player in the head and slice his skin up and hey carry on regardless.

I'm not sure if we follow the NRL rules but as far as I know in the NRL you can not challenge a player who's feet are not on the ground, I've not seen a reply but at the game it appear Farrell took out the kicker in mid air.

Can anyone clear this up for me.

MrDave wrote:I'm not sure if we follow the NRL rules but as far as I know in the NRL you can not challenge a player who's feet are not on the ground, I've not seen a reply but at the game it appear Farrell took out the kicker in mid air.

Can anyone clear this up for me.

That's when they're jumping to catch it.

It shouldn't have been a penalty though, let alone a sin-bin, as Faz was in mid air when the ball went, and couldn't do anything else. Once he'd given a penalty, though, awarding it where the ball lands (or is caught) is the correct decision.

Complete joke of a law, I can understand protecting a kicker after the ball has gone but Farrell was in the process of closing down the kicker before he'd even kicked the ball.

What was he supposed to do ... say "go on son take your time and you might get a 40-20"

Typical RFL fiddling with the rules and making problems where there weren't any.

maccawigan wrote:danny mcguire milked it

He deserved a bloody oscar Reminds me of Alex Murphy getting a player, (can't for the life of me remember his name) sent off in the final, lying on the ground as if knocked out, only to get up when the player has been sent off. Disgraceful very unsportsmanlike, but what do you expect from Leeds players a set of cheats the lot of them.