Moores was unlucky, Meli's was just a stupid play by Meli,

Meli clearly had the time to pull out, the ball was long gone before he committed himself

It has become a joke, you are going to be committed, it's a contact sport.

Both ridiculous decisions. What is so annoying is that every single set sees two or three of them from any side in any league. Then the ref sees fit to only penalise one team for it, thats when it frustrates.

Meli wasnt, he threw the shoulder in knowing he wasnt going to hit the man with the ball, it was gone before he committed himself.

It does need to be refereed consistantly, you wont find me arguing against that, it is unfortunately ignored a lot of the time. But the game gains nothing from allowing players like Meli throw that shoulder in.

Moore's was unlucky, he was keeping Sinfield honest and we dont want to lose that from the game, but Melis was different.

Meli stood his ground, I thought that was allowed

except when leeds players do it.

In that case it's dirty play.

Listen sunshine, you and I both know that if ryan bailey had put in either of those hits thered be people on here asking why he wasn't sin binned/sent off/burnt at the stake.

Ryan couldn't put challenges like those in though as it would require him to be first in, which our Ryan never is.

If Bailey had put the hit that Meli put in , the contact would have been with the players head , or his balls that Bailey missed with the knee last week because it was level with Carmonts chest

Meli's chllenge wasn't late it was committed , but it was fair and it was shoulder to shoulder , no damage done , no attempt to damage

Play on

You're funny , shoulder to shoulder is fine , It's the elbow/forearm to head and the knee to chest that are the problems

Very frustrating as a Wigan fan because Liam Farrell was sin binned for a late incident in the Challenge Cup against Leeds on Danny McGuire, not dissimilar to the ones mentioned, and was just as committed as the two involved in today's game, but the same punishment was not sentenced. The same referee I might also add. I don't have a problem with the punishment if the referee's are consistent.

You can tell these refs have never played the game, how are they suppost to pull out that late. If its an obvious late hit then it should be a penalty but not those two today, both poor decisions.

That Farrell sin bin was very harsh, but it didnt help with McGuires complete over reaction.

They are consistent. Consistently awful.

do the refs even know what consistent means, perhaps someone should explain the meaning of it.

Knee to chest, thats bloody impressive, not sure it is physically possible, but bloody impressive all the same.

Id be that impressed by Bailey getting his knee to chest height whilst running that id be tempted to allow just for how physically difficult that must be.

and that's why it was put on report. He was running in normal, then raised the knee to lunge at Carmont.

and if you can't lift your knee high enough to get level with your chest you've got flexibility issues. It's pretty easy for most people.

I'd agree the ref's inconsistency (and not just on late hits) is very frustrating. Although in a slight defence of the refs IIRC the Farrell "late hit" was on McGuire as he was kicking rather than simply passing which the ones given yesterday were, which is probably why the yellow card appeared for Farrell but not for Moore or Meli.

I actually think the opposite to Smokey, I thought Moore had more opportunity to pull out and knew that Sinfield was going to pass it which is why he hit with his shoulder and didn't try to wrap his arms round, whereas the Meli one was a ridiculous decision in my view.

Moore's was still a tad harsh too.

He was aiming for Carmonts nuts , but Ryan being the useless piece or crap he is missed , fortunatley Carmont saw it coming and managed to get his hands/arms up and prevented any damage , the fact he did that saved the thug from getting a ban , still doesn't mean it wasn't a dangerous challenge

Got to admit that yesterday Leeds were quite good , apart from several forward passes they behaved , and guess what ? , They won , so what does that tell us ?

When they concentrate on playing RL instead of trying to cheat , they are a very good RL team

The Moore one isn't as straight forward as that though. If you say "Moore knew Sinfield would pass" Sinfield could just as easily have dummied and then everyone would be slating Moore for not going for him, so why should Moore take the risk that he wouldn't dummy?

Maybe Moore realised he'd passed and even though he didn't have time to pull out of the challenge completely, he just turned his body to protect himself in the collision. Obviously no point wrapping your arms round for a tackle when the ball has just left, but with no time to pull out completely you might as well brace for impact.

really, i must have flexibility issues, whilst running i find quite difficult to get my knee much further than hip height, maybe a bit further, but certainly not close to the 90 degree bend i would need to get it to chest height

rubbish.complete and utter rubbish. that was a sin binning every time.
the two yesterday were very harsh but considering one was on the advice of james child........................

there was nothing in the Bailey run, it was a nonsense call from Ganson. Bailey put the bumpers up and Carmont got bounced, yes Bailey raised his knee but not to hit Carmont with but to get more leverage for his upper body, find a copy and watch it again, Baileys arms are across his chest, his knee is considerably lower than that, and considerably further back, Bailey impacts Carmont with his arms, there is clear daylight between his knee and Carmont.

don't forget the cunningham to graham forward pass which resulted in a try.
or doesn't that fit your agenda?

He had stopped running , did you not see the ' still ' on B and A

Ryan is a thug , pity really as he could have been the best of his era , no surprise he is a product of the Queens club