They really haven’t. I remember a game you got murdered at Cas under Cunningham.

Makinson kicks his goals you are at Wembley and hoping for a quadruple.

Still the team to beat this season.

Paasi, LMS and Walmsley out, Knowles is 50/50

Big blow for Saints if they are missing all four.

Must make us favorites, we always struggle with their pack. Suppose it depends which Leeds turns up.

If you were to add Batchelor and Sironen then they are in trouble.
LMS is no big miss but Walmsley and Paasi for sure.
They do have some good young lads able to step up and I would think we are slight favourites and I`m sticking to my 8 points clear at the end.

Realy? Never looked scoring on Sat

Am on about our attack our only idea is to give the ball to Hurrel

...sounds familiar

Given some of our showings that might be our plan too,.

Passi and Walmsley out for the rest of the season. Huge blow. Would be massively impressive for Saints to go five in a row in such circumstances.

Agree though it wouldn't paint a flattering picture of the rest of the comp. They're bound to dig deep but to win under these circs would actually be a greater achievement than their WCC win IMO

wellans moaning about duty of care with tackles.
last year they used every dirty trick in the book to get serial offender Morgan Knowles off a charge.
what goes around...

Which was massive in itself. Personally I don't think the comp is in a bad a spot as some say. Tim Sheens said the other day that there are more juniors playing the game in the Paramatta catchment area than in the UK. When you consider those odds and the massive differential in the Salary Cap I think we punch way above our weight. Just hoping the new TV deal does not further widen the gap.

Oh, the irony.

It’s embarrassing, injury doesn’t equal foul play, two unfortunate incidents that have ended up with bad injuries.

Yeh I agree.
The outcome should have nothing to do with the disciplinary review.
But sounds like Saints beef is that it was used in one of Knowles (many) appearances at the MRP, but not in Asiata's case.
Again pointing towards painful inconsistency in how they do things.

But Knowles tackles were illegal, that why they brought the injuries into the discussion, Asiatas were legal tackles

The problem is it is the disciplinary rhetoric which determines whether or not the tackle is illegal. I'm sure every club can name numerous occasions where one of their players have been struck with a high tackle for the MRP to describe it " the attacking player turned into the tackle and was falling to the ground as the defender made the tackle causing the tackle to slide up and strike the head" NFA. The same tackle next week is worded "the defender was tackling high irrespective of the attacker falling and was reckless as to whether or not there was contact with the head" 2 Matches. Same tackle different outcome solely on how the minutes were worded. Having watched the tackle on Paasi it could be worded " defender makes tackle low and in doing so is reckless as to whether shoulder strikes knee putting undue pressure to the knee". Reading most of the club boards it seems agreed the MRP is not fit for purpose in general, The worrying thing is that 3 players in this game have been injured due to the tackling technique of one player. Coaches may now consider giving instruction, based on the technique, on how to stop big packs, resulting in more serious injury.

You could make every single tackle sound dangerous if you worded it correctly.

Im guessing your high tackle comments are regarding Matuatias ban, his was late, high and he's got previous, compared to Shorrocks who was just high, not late, and was punished with a red card. He probably deserved two and Shorrocks one.

I agree that the MRP does make a lot of weird decisions though and probably does need over haul.

What doesn't help is fans dissecting every tackle and decision when they lose, trying to undermine every decision, it makes them look entitled and sore losers. Even more so when their coach spits their dummy out also.

We’ve seen that movie a lot more than you have.
Agree you aren’t looking as fluid with the ball but under Cunningham you had a lovely balance of clueless attack and woeful defence. Wellens has still plenty of work to do to plumb such depths.


The injuries up front may mean you play a more open game and improve the attack. You still have a lot of class players.

Not been able to see the Walmsley one but the Paasi one he does grab the leg but he’s a bit kamikaze, it’s when Holmes then comes in on top and Asiata has the leg. Paasi gets twisted. No consolation for Saints but he will be a marked man now.

Saints looking more and more depleted by the minute. We really must win this one if we have any hope of playoff footy…..

Case Number:
ON/355/23

Morgan Knowles #13, St Helens
Competition:
Super League

Match:
Wigan Warriors v St Helens

Match Date:
2023-04-07

Incident:
Dangerous Contact

Decision:
Charge

Charge Detail:
Law 15.1 (i)

Dangerous Contact - Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.

Grade D

So Defender (Asiata) uses any part of their body (shoulder) to twist bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of any opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.

Looks the same to me, as I've said it is the interpretation the MRP puts on the rule that causes the problem.
The head tackle was nothing to do with Matautia, he got what he deserved in my mind. I was using a head tackle as an example. I've no doubt if you look back through your board you will find examples of (our player) got tackled around the head and we got nothing, why did (our player) get a ban when he did the same tackle. I was simply using it as example to show that it is how the MRP use their interpretation of a rule to decide the outcome.
I'm sure Goulding a co's lawyers will be loving this, especially now the RFL have come out and said that if they review a tackle and deem it dangerous they can't change a rule mid season. Only strengthens a lawyers claim that they are failing to protect a players health.
I would have thought that after 1 player has caused 2 season ending injuries and a further injury to another player,all in one game would have at least warranted a caution for him regarding his tackling technique.
By the way, I'm not using this to say Knowles wasn't guilty as charged.

He does a legs tackle, one player goes high and he goes low, for me it looks a great tackle, its just unfortunate that Paasi gets injured.

Even Wellens agrees -


That tackle has left Wigan’s Mike Cooper out for the rest of the season and, iff found guilty at an Operational Rules Tribunal tonight, Knowles could face a long spell out.

Wellens, however, is keen to ensure the issue doesn’t become a ‘trial by social media’.

“We got a phone call from the Match Review Panel on Monday that Morgan Knowles had been charge with a Grade D,” Wellens said.

“What I would say in this situation is no coach or player wants players to suffer injuries but injuries are part and parcel of the sport. Ours is a collision sport and things can go wrong at times.

“I know Morgan Knowles as a person and how tough he plays the game and how honest a person is. He doesn’t go out on the field to injure players.

“I came off Twitter 12 months ago now for good reason, rugby league is about opinion and everyone has them. What social media does is it gives everyone a platform to share that opinion.

It looks to me that Asiata made direct contact to Paasi's knee which caused the injury. I am not sure if he intentionally went for the knee or if he had aimed for the thigh but slightly misjudged it. It's a bit like aiming for the chest and misjudging it and your shoulder ending up catching their chin.

I think direct contact anywhere near the knee needs to be banned because of the risk of injury. Players shouldn't be diving at the knees or legs either.

I can understand why Saints fans dislike the incidents and would be upset if it happened to a Leeds player. Likewise, I am not sure whether it is in the rulebook that the 1st man in cannot tackle around the knee area and/or dive at the legs. I think players need to be more aware that if they tackle anywhere near the knees they run risk of a ban like any player tackling around the chest area risks hitting the players chin and copping a ban.

isn't it above the knee? nowhere near the joints