Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 67

Thread: Amor ban

  1. #26
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suttoner View Post
    Grace seems to get caught round the head in every game and I don’t even remember a penalty being awarded. I think there should be more consistency.
    Grace is always surrendering in the tackle, so is going down anyway, many players do it and it's more rare to get a penalty

  2. #27
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    The disciplinary need to have a look at the state of Wilkins face and ask the question why no one has been brought up for all the head tackles he’s received over the last 3 matches.
    Was the bruising due to a high tackle?

  3. #28
    In The South Stand Greengrass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    In the Queens Arms dreading the King coming home early.
    Posts
    4,377
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 49er View Post
    So what was he banned for?
    Riding his bike without lights at 1-15 in the afternoon,

    Walking on the joints of the pavement flags,

    And refusing to wear the correct length tie-ups under the fold over of his socks.

    It is getting absolutely stupid now the RFL need a rocket up their jacksie.
    On the Back foot looking for the front one.

  4. #29
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    8,870
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    Was the bruising due to a high tackle?
    No, they were head tackles.

  5. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    Grace is always surrendering in the tackle, so is going down anyway, many players do it and it's more rare to get a penalty


    So you're suggesting that it's fine to attack a player's head if they 'surrender' in the tackle?

  6. #31
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Newport, Shropshire
    Posts
    2,856
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    Grace is always surrendering in the tackle, so is going down anyway, many players do it and it's more rare to get a penalty
    I’m pretty sure he’s been subjected to high shots when he’s actually running. In any event, we’ve seen penalties and even cards when players have literally fallen into tackles. I’m not a conspiracy theorist but players need to know where they stand. There is a lack of consistency, sometimes even within the same game.

  7. #32
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,388
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greengrass View Post
    riding his bike without lights at 1-15 in the afternoon,

    walking on the joints of the pavement flags,

    and refusing to wear the correct length tie-ups under the fold over of his socks.

    It is getting absolutely stupid now the rfl need a rocket up their jacksie.

  8. #33
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Christchurch, NZ
    Posts
    435
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    And of course Castleford were a total bunch of angels! Then again listening to the BBC commentary I thought they were the winning side.....but of course no....even the advantage of playing in a pig sty well past its due date couldnt help them.

  9. #34
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suttoner View Post
    I’m pretty sure he’s been subjected to high shots when he’s actually running. In any event, we’ve seen penalties and even cards when players have literally fallen into tackles. I’m not a conspiracy theorist but players need to know where they stand. There is a lack of consistency, sometimes even within the same game.

    I'll assume your genuine but in most cases when people say consistent they mean in favour of their home team

    I accepted long ago consistency is impossible without using NFL rules and stopping the game each play. Our game is a rolling fluid game and is already having that disrupted with continual breaks in play, I expect the officials to try to apply a consistent approach but accept with the speed and for the good of flow it will never happen completely.

    We can come to this board, or others in ten years time and the same things will be posted unless people just accept and move on, players do

  10. #35
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post


    So you're suggesting that it's fine to attack a player's head if they 'surrender' in the tackle?
    So your suggesting you duck into a tackle it's the same as an intentional head shot?

  11. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    So your suggesting you duck into a tackle it's the same as an intentional head shot?
    I don't know, I'll ask Niall Evalds...

    Seriously, you're being disingenuous because not only do most players duck into tackles at times, but Grace doesn't do this in any sort of exaggerated manner.

    The point remains that it's the perception of a whole load of Saints fans that our players are suffering from a number of unpunished contacts to the head, whilst we're getting clobbered by the disciplinary.

  12. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    I don't know, I'll ask Niall Evalds...

    Seriously, you're being disingenuous because not only do most players duck into tackles at times, but Grace doesn't do this in any sort of exaggerated manner.

    The point remains that it's the perception of a whole load of Saints fans that our players are suffering from a number of unpunished contacts to the head, whilst we're getting clobbered by the disciplinary.
    Personally I'm a bit baffled why the Lees and Faraimo offences were given the same bans. The committee concluded that the Lees offence was unintentional but there is no way that the Faraimo one wasn't. Anyone who watched the Fev vs Hull game would have seen that both sets of players discipline was a disgrace and that the Faraimo incident was the culmination of a player seeing the red mist and becoming desperate to put a shot on his opponent. The fact that Faraimo came sprinting across the pitch to belt the winger on the opposite side of the pitch was a clue. Yet again the committee continues to be inconsistent IMO.

  13. #38
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    2,661
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    Personally I'm a bit baffled why the Lees and Faraimo offences were given the same bans. The committee concluded that the Lees offence was unintentional but there is no way that the Faraimo one wasn't. Anyone who watched the Fev vs Hull game would have seen that both sets of players discipline was a disgrace and that the Faraimo incident was the culmination of a player seeing the red mist and becoming desperate to put a shot on his opponent. The fact that Faraimo came sprinting across the pitch to belt the winger on the opposite side of the pitch was a clue. Yet again the committee continues to be inconsistent IMO.
    Spot on.

  14. #39
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Leigh
    Posts
    1,209
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SaintH517 View Post
    Never a ban but not as though he’ll be a miss.
    I think he will be a miss. Ran for 735 meters in his last 6 SL games, bet there aren't many props with that kind of form behind them at the minute.

  15. #40
    In The South Stand southernsaint7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,237
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    Personally I'm a bit baffled why the Lees and Faraimo offences were given the same bans. The committee concluded that the Lees offence was unintentional but there is no way that the Faraimo one wasn't. Anyone who watched the Fev vs Hull game would have seen that both sets of players discipline was a disgrace and that the Faraimo incident was the culmination of a player seeing the red mist and becoming desperate to put a shot on his opponent. The fact that Faraimo came sprinting across the pitch to belt the winger on the opposite side of the pitch was a clue. Yet again the committee continues to be inconsistent IMO.
    Faurimo has already had a red card this season too - Lees hasn't. But Lees got what 3 games and Faurimo got 2. Mad

  16. #41
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,246
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    When Faraimo hurtled into the tackle the commentator said he came in more like a Flymo. I laughed until I saw the replay. It was worse than Lees and as posted earlier Faraimo has already been banned whereas Lees hasn't!
    4 matches at least. Farce!

  17. #42
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    I don't know, I'll ask Niall Evalds...

    Seriously, you're being disingenuous because not only do most players duck into tackles at times, but Grace doesn't do this in any sort of exaggerated manner.

    The point remains that it's the perception of a whole load of Saints fans that our players are suffering from a number of unpunished contacts to the head, whilst we're getting clobbered by the disciplinary.

    Exactly , it's the perception and not one I support. I don't believe we are on the wrong end of any more decisions that other clubs. The nature of the sport and the game playing makes it so difficult for officials and disciplinary, how many times have we seen players hold their neck with a supposed crusher tackle. Fact is we have no idea if it's intentional or really hurt, we have to take it at face value and make a judgement, when it's this subjective consistency will be very difficult.
    Without persistent stops in the game or players not doing as much game playing then I don't beilive it will ever be any different.

    Also, the fact remains players duck into tackles, and that makes it more likely to get contact to the head, it wouldn't be intentional and certainly not the same as an intentional high shot. I played for years and gave away a few high shots and none where on purpose, usually they are due to be wrong footed or attacker falling into the tackle.

    It's a contact sport some some contact to the head will happen through normal contact and after contact, not every bruise is the result of something sinister or intentional

  18. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    Exactly , it's the perception and not one I support. I don't believe we are on the wrong end of any more decisions that other clubs. The nature of the sport and the game playing makes it so difficult for officials and disciplinary, how many times have we seen players hold their neck with a supposed crusher tackle. Fact is we have no idea if it's intentional or really hurt, we have to take it at face value and make a judgement, when it's this subjective consistency will be very difficult.
    Without persistent stops in the game or players not doing as much game playing then I don't beilive it will ever be any different.

    Also, the fact remains players duck into tackles, and that makes it more likely to get contact to the head, it wouldn't be intentional and certainly not the same as an intentional high shot. I played for years and gave away a few high shots and none where on purpose, usually they are due to be wrong footed or attacker falling into the tackle.

    It's a contact sport some some contact to the head will happen through normal contact and after contact, not every bruise is the result of something sinister or intentional
    Presumably you also disagreed with the Chairman when he also voiced concern about disciplinary inconsistencies:

    http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/sport/...kbone/?ref=rss

    Personally I see no differences now in the way that the sanctions process is administered to when it was when McManus penned his frustrations. I think the DC is way to inconsistent and lacking credibility.

  19. #44
    In The South Stand Greengrass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    In the Queens Arms dreading the King coming home early.
    Posts
    4,377
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    Presumably you also disagreed with the Chairman when he also voiced concern about disciplinary inconsistencies:

    http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/sport/...kbone/?ref=rss

    Personally I see no differences now in the way that the sanctions process is administered to when it was when McManus penned his frustrations. I think the DC is way to inconsistent and lacking credibility.
    Perhaps the RFL took exception to the TRUTH and are now making the club pay for daring to question the level of inconsistency and refereeing which is and has been for a few years AT ROCK BOTTOM.
    On the Back foot looking for the front one.

  20. #45
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greengrass View Post
    Perhaps the RFL took exception to the TRUTH and are now making the club pay for daring to question the level of inconsistency and refereeing which is and has been for a few years AT ROCK BOTTOM.

    So has the game playing by coaches, chairmen and players. Don't throw stones from glass houses and all that

    The players can sort out their act and help the refs, the rules can be changed to support consistency and fans can have some understanding of the challenge associated with officiating, or this will never change, no matter how much bleating people do on a forum and their misguided outrage

    Reports of parents at a kids game the other week fighting and the ref being led from the field by police who had to be called, this anger towards refs just creates mob rule and Lynch mobs and not for the better

    Help, support, understanding, working together are all things that lead to positive change, not bleating and feeling victimised

  21. #46
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    8,870
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    Presumably you also disagreed with the Chairman when he also voiced concern about disciplinary inconsistencies:

    http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/sport/...kbone/?ref=rss

    Personally I see no differences now in the way that the sanctions process is administered to when it was when McManus penned his frustrations. I think the DC is way to inconsistent and lacking credibility.
    In my opinion the disciplinary process is at its worse at the moment with little parity on offences and a terrible ambiguous approach from review to charge, seasons a go the disciplinary were going to follow the NRL model on tackles around the head with stiffer penalties.

    We do have the on field safety net of players being assessed for head injuries but we are still not getting to the root cause and not dealing it with the correct deterrent, the disciplinary seem to judge the reckless/carelessness/intentional attributes all the same.

  22. #47
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Newport, Shropshire
    Posts
    2,856
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    I'll assume your genuine but in most cases when people say consistent they mean in favour of their home team

    I accepted long ago consistency is impossible without using NFL rules and stopping the game each play. Our game is a rolling fluid game and is already having that disrupted with continual breaks in play, I expect the officials to try to apply a consistent approach but accept with the speed and for the good of flow it will never happen completely.

    We can come to this board, or others in ten years time and the same things will be posted unless people just accept and move on, players do
    IÂ’m not trying to get into an argument for the sake of it but I donÂ’t think that players just accept and move on when it really matters - during the game. When I watch all teams on Sky, I see players get rattled by bad decisions, argue with the ref and lose concentration. IÂ’ve even seen tries scored because the defending team is still looking for the penalty that never came or players are so annoyed their minds arenÂ’t on their job.

    I actually wish all players could accept a refs decision, even when they know itÂ’s wrong. This is partly because refereeing canÂ’t be an easy job and a respectful distance has to be maintained to avoid chaos on the field. ItÂ’s also because refs can award penalties, march a defending team back 10 metres and show a card for dissent.

    I’ve said before that I’d be happier with more distance between player and ref. Refs should be “sir” and the player should be number and team. The one thing I prefer about Union is the distance kept between official and player. And refs shouldn’t just be arrogant bully boys, they should be polite, in controlled situations, towards the players.

    I agree with you that if this technology had been around in the 1960s, we’d have been ranting about Eric Clay or some other ref of the period but that’s because we’re fans. But, I think we are entitled to a better disciplinary process than we have at present. We all see, for example, bad head shots, where a player then doesn’t roll around like a soccer prima donna, go unpunished and penalties given for “technical” head shots, where only light contact is made and the attacking player is barely aware of where contact was first made. One of the penalties Castleford were awarded against us was for that type of tackle.

    Incidentally, your surrender tackle argument doesnÂ’t seem to work with Stuart Cummings. Even when defenders duck low he sticks to the line that the defender has a duty of care, which they do.

    P. S. Sorry for the funny A apostrophes etc. Seems not to like the iPad.

  23. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suttoner View Post
    IÂ’m not trying to get into an argument for the sake of it but I donÂ’t think that players just accept and move on when it really matters - during the game. When I watch all teams on Sky, I see players get rattled by bad decisions, argue with the ref and lose concentration. IÂ’ve even seen tries scored because the defending team is still looking for the penalty that never came or players are so annoyed their minds arenÂ’t on their job.

    I actually wish all players could accept a refs decision, even when they know itÂ’s wrong. This is partly because refereeing canÂ’t be an easy job and a respectful distance has to be maintained to avoid chaos on the field. ItÂ’s also because refs can award penalties, march a defending team back 10 metres and show a card for dissent.

    I’ve said before that I’d be happier with more distance between player and ref. Refs should be “sir” and the player should be number and team. The one thing I prefer about Union is the distance kept between official and player. And refs shouldn’t just be arrogant bully boys, they should be polite, in controlled situations, towards the players.

    I agree with you that if this technology had been around in the 1960s, we’d have been ranting about Eric Clay or some other ref of the period but that’s because we’re fans. But, I think we are entitled to a better disciplinary process than we have at present. We all see, for example, bad head shots, where a player then doesn’t roll around like a soccer prima donna, go unpunished and penalties given for “technical” head shots, where only light contact is made and the attacking player is barely aware of where contact was first made. One of the penalties Castleford were awarded against us was for that type of tackle.

    Incidentally, your surrender tackle argument doesnÂ’t seem to work with Stuart Cummings. Even when defenders duck low he sticks to the line that the defender has a duty of care, which they do.

    P. S. Sorry for the funny A apostrophes etc. Seems not to like the iPad.
    I agree with much of this and think it is a balanced surmise. I particularly the distance between officials and players. I think it doesn't help when Players are called by the first name or even worse, nickname. The game needs to be more professional in this regard.

    I do think that some of the players/coaches frustrations are because the standard of refereeing has not moved on with the times. There is simply a too higher percentage of decisions which are blatantly incorrect and some of the frustrations we see are a by product of that.

    I empathise with refs because the sport has become more difficult to referee as the speed, intensity and tackling techniques have changed over time. The NRL did something about this - they brought in a second ref. It shows how poorly run the sport is over here that this has yet to be introduced.

    The disciplinary process should be something that is much easier to control and yet there are again far too many inconsistencies. When a balanced and cool head like McManus feels the need toaddress this in an article then there is usually no smoke without fire.

  24. #49
    In The West Stand Ralph Fridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Around
    Posts
    5,517
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    Personally I'm a bit baffled why the Lees and Faraimo offences were given the same bans. The committee concluded that the Lees offence was unintentional but there is no way that the Faraimo one wasn't. Anyone who watched the Fev vs Hull game would have seen that both sets of players discipline was a disgrace and that the Faraimo incident was the culmination of a player seeing the red mist and becoming desperate to put a shot on his opponent. The fact that Faraimo came sprinting across the pitch to belt the winger on the opposite side of the pitch was a clue. Yet again the committee continues to be inconsistent IMO.

    Spot on. Your posts are on point more or less every time

  25. #50
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Golborne
    Age
    56
    Posts
    339
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    So has the game playing by coaches, chairmen and players. Don't throw stones from glass houses and all that

    The players can sort out their act and help the refs, the rules can be changed to support consistency and fans can have some understanding of the challenge associated with officiating, or this will never change, no matter how much bleating people do on a forum and their misguided outrage

    Reports of parents at a kids game the other week fighting and the ref being led from the field by police who had to be called, this anger towards refs just creates mob rule and Lynch mobs and not for the better

    Help, support, understanding, working together are all things that lead to positive change, not bleating and feeling victimised
    It may interest you (all) to know, there has been a recent meeting to address the dwindling number of RL referees coming into or remaining in the game. One of the most cited reasons for the problem, which is at grass roots and may seriously affect development of future talent (as there will be too few refs to stage the volume of games), is the abuse they are subjected to.

    Obviously there is a big difference between SL 'standard' we should expect, and what happens on amateur pitches every weekend, but the abuse is inimical to keeping refs in the game sufficiently to raise standards, IMHO

    As part of the response to the numbers problem, there has been an initiative started, to attract more people to train and function as referees. Perhaps all those on here whom complain at the standard of refereeing, would be willing to go and train and act as referees, so they can directly assist in raising that standard; or at least aide in ensuring grass roots and youth rugby doesn't suffer any further? I pessimistically expect very few would however - after all, who wants to take all that abuse......

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •