Wigan v Warrington

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1005
    Ceejay1
    • Posts: 105
    • North Stander
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    Hill sent off, justified.   Hope he gets a long ban.

    #1006
    Viking Man
    • Posts: 115
    • North Stander
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    Why?  Because he plays for Warrington?

    Was it a red card, yes.  Did he mean it?  Of course not, he’s got a split second to react to someone trying to score.  Very clumsy and messy attempt and hopefully Powell is ok (although I don’t like the way Powell ‘plays’ the game either).

    Hill is in danger of being left out this team, can’t remember the last time I thought he’s had a good game.

    #1007
    Ping
    • Posts: 9
    • Kemik’s Assistant
    • ☆☆

    <p style=”text-align: left;”>I thought there was intent. Shame he did not rough anyone up on the G.B tour.</p>

    #1012
    Spelly
    • Posts: 231
    • First Teamer
    • ☆☆☆☆☆☆

    I agree with Viking Man that “clumsy” would sum it up.

    Did it warrant sending off? Yes, but for me it was not an “attack” on the head, so I reckon a three match ban would be fair.

    Great to see Powell up and about at the end of the game, and hopefully he suffered no injuries from the incident.

    Spelly.

    " ---- and then on the eighth day, God created Rugby League."

    #1013
    Anotherposter
    • Posts: 138
    • North Stander
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    I agree with Viking Man that “clumsy” would sum it up. Did it warrant sending off? Yes, but for me it was not an “attack” on the head, so I reckon a three match ban would be fair. Great to see Powell up and about at the end of the game, and hopefully he suffered no injuries from the incident. Spelly.

     

    not so sure about that, hitting him once round the head is clumsy, hitting him again with the other arm is pushing it but then pulling his head back with both arms as he was falling is outright dangerous

     

    saying that i thought Wire put up a good show, trying to keep the ball alive and run Wigan around , i was surprised Wigan chose to die with ball on a number of occasions rather than pop over a drop that would have sealed the game and even though the PTB was tidyed up slightly i was disappointed that players are still allowed to just roll it back rather than even attempting to play it with the foot as promised

    #1018
    Anotherposter
    • Posts: 138
    • North Stander
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    Also thought that Walker looked very sharp when he came on and a bit fitter than he was when he was here, surprised at people saying they wouldnt have him back here on loan

    #1029
    sandgroper
    • Posts: 789
    • Captain
    • ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

    Also thought that Walker looked very sharp when he came on and a bit fitter than he was when he was here, surprised at people saying they wouldnt have him back here on loan

    Lively in attack which suited the timing last night. Defensively, compared to JJ for instance, he isn’t as good. I think most of us could see his potential but his defence needs work.

    #1044
    Rafe Wrench
    • Posts: 96
    • Time to get a VIQI
    • ☆☆☆☆

    Thought Wire were the better team but conspired in their own downfall with the cards. What about that clear knock on Kendall missed near the end as Wire were pressing the Wigan line?

    #1052
    RobboRobbo
    • Posts: 50
    • Time to get a VIQI
    • ☆☆☆☆

    I felt sorry for Warrington. They showed tremendous spirit and resilience and reserved a draw at least. That knock on decision was a travesty.

    Great game to watch though.

    #1067
    Anotherposter
    • Posts: 138
    • North Stander
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    it was given as a chargedown which based on the rules was the correct decision but imo he made an attempt to catch the ball,  so where does the difference lie between that decision and a player who drops a high kick which is always given as a knock on ?

    it must be in the timeframe between the kick and knock on

    #1074
    Dan1
    • Posts: 175
    • North Stander
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    <p style=”text-align: left;”>It wasn’t a charge down, he moved his hand in the direction of the ball to knock it down or catch it. Blatant knock on.  But I was glad they lost after Fitzpatrick  said they would do a clean sweep over Wigan. With 13 men though I think they would have won, better side on the night.</p>

    #1090
    northstander
    • Posts: 14
    • Kemik’s Assistant
    • ☆☆

    According to RL Rules
    Charging Down is blocking the path of the ball with hands, arm or body as it rises from an opponent’s kick.
    The key word is rises which certainly was

    #1094
    Anotherposter
    • Posts: 138
    • North Stander
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    According to RL Rules Charging Down is blocking the path of the ball with hands, arm or body as it rises from an opponent’s kick. The key word is rises which certainly was

    I agree it was the correct decision based on the rules but as previously posted i thought he made an attempt to catch the ball albeit one handed

     

    #1097
    Former ChemicFormer Chemic
    • Posts: 219
    • First Teamer
    • ☆☆☆☆☆☆

    To me that “charge down/knock on” decision was another example of very intelligent people dreaming up rules for a simple game. I’m also annoyed about applying the laws of physics to forward passes that aren’t deemed forward.

    RL is a sport played and watched by ordinary people – the only rule should be … keep it simple.

    #1194
    Anotherposter
    • Posts: 138
    • North Stander
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    3 games for Hill, seems fair enough to me

Back to Forum Home | Mark Topic Read  | 
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.