Disciplinary

Discuss all things Wigan Warriors. Comments and opinions on all aspects of the club's performance are welcome.
southportcdm
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:05 pm

Re: Disciplinary

Post by southportcdm »

Rocky at 9 is surely the least disruptive to the rest of the team. Not ideal but he does have some pace and a kicking game if required.
morley pie eater
Posts: 3330
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 2:01 pm

Re: Disciplinary

Post by morley pie eater »

It's all well and good for fans to rant about refs and the judiciary, but the result generates more heat than light. If we really want to understand the 1 game ban for O'Neill we need to start with how things work.

For fairness and consistency, rules are made and applied without favour. If a player being tackled is lifted above the horizontal, it's at least a yellow card. The intent of the tackler, or lack of it (it could be just clumsy or accidental) can affect the punishment but not the guilty verdict. The fact that O'Neill got just one game reflects this. His tackle was illegal but not malicious. His minimum ban of 1 match serves as a warning to him, and others, to be a bit more careful.

(This is my reading of the rules and their application, not necessarily my personal view. But understanding how the panel thinks might help calm down some of the more extreme reactions.)
Wigan ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Saints ⭐⭐⭐
User avatar
EagleEyePie
Posts: 469
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: Disciplinary

Post by EagleEyePie »

doc wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2024 6:15 pm Stop messing with the team. Play Ratchford in his natural position at hooker or slip Rocky in there.
It seems like Matt Peet is going to select Ratchford based on his comments. It's a big ask, but Saints are in a similar situation and might also be giving a debut to a young hooker. It's a baptism of fire to make a debut in a derby but sometimes you can overcomplicate things. If Peet is confident in his abilities then it's the obvious choice.

I don't know if Hampshire has ever played hooker before but he doesn't seem like the sort of player you'd put in the middle of the field. He just seems a bit too weak defensively for me.

The only other option with experience at hooker is Adam Keighran, and that experience is at the highest level, but that would mean Eckersley at centre and a right edge that contains Nsemba, Farrimond and Eckersley alongside each other. That's probably putting too much inexperience together and potentially causing a bigger issue.

I'd say go with Ratchford for as long as we can and then maybe have someone fill in. Given how important the role is defensively I think Farrell might be an option there too, with Walters moving to the left edge.
Wiganer Ted
Posts: 3274
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Disciplinary

Post by Wiganer Ted »

Surely the club will appeal this?

Brad didn't lift both his arms were around the player's body. The Leigh players legs flailed in the air due to the power of Brad's tackle.
fozzie58
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:47 pm

Re: Disciplinary

Post by fozzie58 »

morley pie eater wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2024 7:08 pm It's all well and good for fans to rant about refs and the judiciary, but the result generates more heat than light. If we really want to understand the 1 game ban for O'Neill we need to start with how things work.

For fairness and consistency, rules are made and applied without favour. If a player being tackled is lifted above the horizontal, it's at least a yellow card. The intent of the tackler, or lack of it (it could be just clumsy or accidental) can affect the punishment but not the guilty verdict. The fact that O'Neill got just one game reflects this. His tackle was illegal but not malicious. His minimum ban of 1 match serves as a warning to him, and others, to be a bit more careful.

(This is my reading of the rules and their application, not necessarily my personal view. But understanding how the panel thinks might help calm down some of the more extreme reactions.)
Agreed Morley time to stop the moaning about the refs and accept this is the way forward now I honestly though the Bin was correct and hopeful of nothing more but not to be and I can understand their reasoning behind it.
The artist formally known as fozziekskem
fozzie58
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:47 pm

Re: Disciplinary

Post by fozzie58 »

EagleEyePie wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2024 7:20 pm
doc wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2024 6:15 pm Stop messing with the team. Play Ratchford in his natural position at hooker or slip Rocky in there.
It seems like Matt Peet is going to select Ratchford based on his comments. It's a big ask, but Saints are in a similar situation and might also be giving a debut to a young hooker. It's a baptism of fire to make a debut in a derby but sometimes you can overcomplicate things. If Peet is confident in his abilities then it's the obvious choice.

I don't know if Hampshire has ever played hooker before but he doesn't seem like the sort of player you'd put in the middle of the field. He just seems a bit too weak defensively for me.

The only other option with experience at hooker is Adam Keighran, and that experience is at the highest level, but that would mean Eckersley at centre and a right edge that contains Nsemba, Farrimond and Eckersley alongside each other. That's probably putting too much inexperience together and potentially causing a bigger issue.

I'd say go with Ratchford for as long as we can and then maybe have someone fill in. Given how important the role is defensively I think Farrell might be an option there too, with Walters moving to the left edge.
Yup I’d play Keighran at hooker and young eckersley at centre they won’t let anyone down not sure that Hampshire is much use at hooker tbh has he ever played there? No did go if it where me and give the kids their chance against an ageing and injury hit at Helens side
The artist formally known as fozziekskem
Charriots Offiah
Posts: 4473
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:14 pm

Re: Disciplinary

Post by Charriots Offiah »

morley pie eater wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2024 7:08 pm It's all well and good for fans to rant about refs and the judiciary, but the result generates more heat than light. If we really want to understand the 1 game ban for O'Neill we need to start with how things work.

For fairness and consistency, rules are made and applied without favour. If a player being tackled is lifted above the horizontal, it's at least a yellow card. The intent of the tackler, or lack of it (it could be just clumsy or accidental) can affect the punishment but not the guilty verdict. The fact that O'Neill got just one game reflects this. His tackle was illegal but not malicious. His minimum ban of 1 match serves as a warning to him, and others, to be a bit more careful.

(This is my reading of the rules and their application, not necessarily my personal view. But understanding how the panel thinks might help calm down some of the more extreme reactions.)
I understand your logic MPE but the problem is that it is not being consistently applied by the officials or the MRP. I have seen several instances last weekend where the attacker has been lifted above the horizontal and not even a penalty administered. I am all in favour of clamping down on malicious actions but for me O'Neill's case warranted no more than a sin bin, if that.
Charriots Offiah
Posts: 4473
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:14 pm

Re: Disciplinary

Post by Charriots Offiah »

fozzie58 wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2024 8:08 pm
EagleEyePie wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2024 7:20 pm
doc wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2024 6:15 pm Stop messing with the team. Play Ratchford in his natural position at hooker or slip Rocky in there.
It seems like Matt Peet is going to select Ratchford based on his comments. It's a big ask, but Saints are in a similar situation and might also be giving a debut to a young hooker. It's a baptism of fire to make a debut in a derby but sometimes you can overcomplicate things. If Peet is confident in his abilities then it's the obvious choice.

I don't know if Hampshire has ever played hooker before but he doesn't seem like the sort of player you'd put in the middle of the field. He just seems a bit too weak defensively for me.

The only other option with experience at hooker is Adam Keighran, and that experience is at the highest level, but that would mean Eckersley at centre and a right edge that contains Nsemba, Farrimond and Eckersley alongside each other. That's probably putting too much inexperience together and potentially causing a bigger issue.

I'd say go with Ratchford for as long as we can and then maybe have someone fill in. Given how important the role is defensively I think Farrell might be an option there too, with Walters moving to the left edge.
Yup I’d play Keighran at hooker and young eckersley at centre they won’t let anyone down not sure that Hampshire is much use at hooker tbh has he ever played there? No did go if it where me and give the kids their chance against an ageing and injury hit at Helens side
Ratchford will do for me, we need someone at 9 who can pass accurately and quickly. I am never in favour of putting a round peg in a square hole. However, in Peet I trust. Same as last week. As for the Saints, they are an ageing team but I think you will find that apart from Makinson and Walmsley they will be able to select their best starting 13.
josie andrews
Posts: 36442
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:17 pm
Location: Wigan
Contact:

Re: Disciplinary

Post by josie andrews »

Wigan Warriors make appeal decision on Brad O’Neill as head coach Matt Peet discusses hooker options

Wigan Warriors head coach Matt Peet has confirmed that the club will not be appealing the suspension handed to Brad O’Neill ahead of the derby against St Helens.
The 21-year-old hooker was sent to the sin-bin for his tackle on Leigh Leopards forward Robbie Mulhern last Friday and has since been hit with a Grade B dangerous throw/lift by the match review panel.

Talking to press at a joint-media event at The Brick Community Stadium on Monday, Wigan boss Peet confirmed that the club will not be appealing the decision with the England international set to miss this Friday’s home clash against Paul Wellens’ side.

Instead, Peet admits that he will look into the club’s pathways for a replacement, with a potential debut on the cards with fellow hookers Kruise Leeming and Tom Forber both currently sidelined through respective injuries.

“We’re not going to appeal, no,” Peet said.

“I’ve got my own opinions about the charge and about the tackle but from the discussions that we’ve had, I don’t feel like there’s much hope for getting Brad off.

"I’d rather direct our energy elsewhere – I’d rather move on.

“We’re going to look into our pathway, a few players in the juniors who will probably get an opportunity.”

Meanwhile, St Helens will be fighting the charge handed to utility Moses Mbye following his Grade B dangerous contact charge.

“We’ve got Moses on a one-game ban but we will be contesting that,” Saints boss Paul Wellens confirmed.

“I’m not going to sit here and plead the case, but we’re not contesting because we’re playing Wigan away – we’re contesting because we feel we have a case.”

https://www.wigantoday.net/sport/rugby- ... ns-4695241
Anyone can support a team when it is winning, that takes no courage.
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage. #18thMan
Caboosegg
Posts: 3919
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:51 pm

Re: Disciplinary

Post by Caboosegg »

If O'Neils tackle is a ban then I'm seriously considering if I get a ST next year. It was a solid hit.

The amount of fine is obscene as well. It's getting to the point that tackling is just an expense.

How mulhurn is only a fine as well.

Derby day this week, tempers will flare and we have more players banned.
These are two reasons not to trust people.
1. We don't know them.
2. We do know them.
Post Reply