Try telling that to Chris Annakin, you 'blinkered' Pie !

Quote ="Nozzy"I am no fan of Hull KR but how can anybody justify THIS tackle (grade B range 1-2) getting 4 matches... www.loverugbyleague.com/news_208 ... weeks.html When this tackle (grade C range 2-3) only gets 1 match?! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jXHXEXe22PI It is simply mental Stinks of favouritism. If he was in the Championship he'd have had the book thrown at him, no question! SL players get lighter treatment than the rest and 'big' clubs/players get it lighter still.'" I'd describe Boudebza's tackle as a cynical [iattack[/i to the side of the knee, while the "tackled" player is held up. I'd describe O'Louglin's tackle as a lazy, reckless challenge from a player of great repute.

Quote ="Nozzy"I am no fan of Hull KR but how can anybody justify THIS tackle (grade B range 1-2) getting 4 matches... www.loverugbyleague.com/news_208 ... weeks.html When this tackle (grade C range 2-3) only gets 1 match?! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jXHXEXe22PI It is simply mental Stinks of favouritism. If he was in the Championship he'd have had the book thrown at him, no question! SL players get lighter treatment than the rest and 'big' clubs/players get it lighter still.'" I'd describe Boudebza's tackle as a cynical [iattack[/i to the side of the knee, while the "tackled" player is held up. I'd describe O'Louglin's tackle as a lazy, reckless challenge from a player of great repute.

How is a knee injury the result of high tackle?

I will humour you. It was caused as he fell unconscious to the floor as a result of SOL high shot so directly caused by an illegal challenge

It was caused when he attempted to sidestep the challenge imo.

Imo you are wrong

I'd love to see this medical report where they don't state that a knee injury was caused by a head high tackle. We may even be able to use it when we appeal this one match ban and get him back for Friday.

IMO Chris Chester has really let himself and the club down, bleating on like this.

Chris Chester has described the disciplinary panel as farcical. Pretty much every RL fans aside from blinkered Wiganers agrees with him.

FWIW I'm a Wigan fan and I don't agree with Suzy at all. Shenton's serious injury was unfortunate, but there are loads of tackles like Boudedza's in SL week in, week out. In his case, the injury counted against him. Is that right, juxtaposed against O'Loughin's? Of course it isn't. And I think with one match, he's got off pretty lightly, although it's hardly the worst tackle of the season, it's not good.

Even as a Wigan fan I hope it's not true about the appeal. Despite all the bickering and faux outrage it wasn't that bad. SOL got done by a neat little step, mistimed his challenge and clobbered Annekin round the head. I've no problem with the red card, I said at the start I thought it was worth 3 matches which would be reduced to 2 with an EGP and I've not changed my mind since.

I can understand the reduction to 1 if the panel took into account a very good record and the fact he was sent of, which whether you agree with the guidelines or not it is within them.

I think the real point that should be made is about the system which I think needs tweaking. I'd prefer the MRP to simply review the matches and decide whether they think an incident is worthy of a charge without recommending what grade of charge it is. Bear in mind the grade C charge in this case is only a recommendation. The disciplinary should then decide the level of punishment. IMO rather than a range they should start with a minimum then add on more fun required. For example grade A, 0 matches and a fine, if a player has a poor record add a match on, if a player has previous for the same offence add another match etc, if they believe he should have been sent off add another match but make that one to be served the next time the player is due to play against the team he offended against.

Although I can understand the opinion that a player should get a longer ban if they cause an injury by foul play I don't agree. We would end up with far more serious offences that by good fortune didn't cause injury getting off with much lighter sentences. I think each case should be judged on what happened not the result.

Finally I'm glad to hear Annakin suffered no serious head damage and wish him all the best recovering from the knee injury.

You mean the one were Raynor PUNCHED him in the face with a CLOSED FIST and SWINGING ARM?



Funny how we didn't get a week's worth of faux outrage when Atkins' got 1 match for a Grade C? I've seen players take real stif arms to the neck, I've seen them have their jaws broke by elbows in the face, have their eye sockets smashed by high shots. But apparently this was one of the worst tackles in the memory of man and he should be banned for 12 games. Absolutely no anti-Wigan bias here, no sir!

100% this. I'm not calling for O'Loughlin to be banned for 12 games or whatever (EGW), as I don't really believe it was the worst tackle - that young Saints player in the reserves can take credit for that. A three match ban would've at least been consistent.

Give over. In Raynor's case he almost going for the tackle but for some stupid reason he did what he did. O'Loughlin, on the other hand, just stuck his arm out without even bothering to make a tackle, his response to the red card just sums him up. Let's not forget the outrage when Morley clobbered Harrison Hansen a few years back.

And yet the video evidence does not show that. It does in fact show both arms wrapping around the player. The review panel agree and plainly state that he made an attempt to tackle, but I guess you know best from your armchair.

What video are you watching? Only after does he stick his arm out and catch Annakin both of his arms begin wrapping around him. Every man and his dog know the MRP is not fit for purpose because that clearly wasn't an attempt to tackle.

I think it's more of a case RFL favour players than clubs. I remember Cunningham been up at the RFL a fair few weeks and got off every time due to his "good record" Didn't he fracture a Wakefield players eye socket with a headbutt? Peacock throwing haymakers against Leigh. most players got 2 - 3 game ban. Again got off due to his good record. But then they took his good record into account again when he was brought up the next time. If you don't get a ban because you've never been banned before and take that into account every single time, you're never going to get banned.

For me a 3-4 game would have been right IMHO Very surprised he only got 1.

I know every one goes on about consistency but it's pretty hard to get that. I could put 5 instances of foul play on here, and every one would differ in their view of how much the punishment should be. I personally think the punishments are too soft across the board. I think it's the obvious cases (eg Danny Broughs cannon ball tackle against Salford) need sorting out though. them sort are just baffling.

Final point, our sport looks so unbelievably small time with chairman bickering with the RFL on twitter. It's just unprofessional and the "our club is being picked on" everytime one of their players is brought up is tiring. Yes there are issues with the MRP but there are ways of getting it changed.

The whole judicial process needs reform IMO;

- Every type of foul play should be categorised to an even lower, more detailed level & indexed with a set penalty of games/fines attached to it, so that fans/players/clubs know exactly what they face. The "3/4 Game" type situations only stir fans into a frenzy if the player is awarded the lower end. Set it at x.

- The Judicial panel does not set the sentence, it only decides on the category of offense.

- The Judicial panel needs to be fully independent. This is pretty difficult as RL is such a small world. No ex-players or coaches. Perhaps ex-referees?

- Get rid of the appeals process, it's a farce. It's bogus. Clubs should deal with the consequences of their players actions and abide by the panels decision. They have chance to make their case at the hearing.

- Keep the EGP option for first offences (reducing the sentence by one game only).

- No account should be made of a players 'good record'. That's what the EGP is for.

- I don't think the extent of injury should be taken into account, it sets a very iffy precedent. The sentences should be severe enough on their own (especially on ones with a higher chance of causing bad injuries). The O'Loughlin/Annakin one was a bit of a one-off, I can't remember an injury like that from a head-shot. Would the fans calling for the injury to be taken into account be happy if O'Loughlin got SoS if Annakin was good to go next week? It works both ways. it needs to be discounted, even if that can be frustrating.


That's my 10p on the whole thing. Just my opinions innit.

I suppose if you cry for long enough the video might change. It hasn't after a week though, but go ahead and try for a fortnight!

Funny how when Wigan benefit from the rules of the game that everyone plays under lots of people suddenly want to change them



It doesn't seem 5 minutes since social media imploded over Manfredi's finger tip try with howls of "That isn't a try... And if it is, well they should change the rules!"

Thank you for your well thought out and constructive reply.

Wigan or not, the decision on O'Loughlin is facial, as is the system. There have been plenty of injustices not involving Wigan, and this one is just the latest in a long line of poor decisions. The system needs reform. We're not talking about rules of the game, why you've brought that up I've no idea.

If you believe the system to be perfect and suitable to the purpose, fair enough. Feel free to challenge the points I've made if you don't agree.

2 weeks ago Atkins got a grade C charge and received a 1 match ban and a £300 fine. This week you'd think it was the first time in the history of the game to have happened and fans are outraged. Suddenly they don't want red cards to affect the punishment. Suddenly they want Grade C's to carry more punishment. What they want, in effect, is for different rules to apply to Wigan. Same goes for the Manfredi fingertip try. Hundreds have been given. Those are the rules. Wigan get given one and everyone wants a rule change. People claim Wigan get special treatment when the irony is they are outraged at the rules being applied to us that apply to everyone else.

Delusional.

But getting sent off means you are already serving a ban of sorts, and the team is down a player, in the same game in which the offence took place.
A ban handed down on a Tuesday night means that player gets a long rest, another player gets a game and the team can put out a full 13, so no real penalty.
Red cards can affect results more than bans.

No, what people want is more consistency. If you took your cherry and white tinted glasses off for second, you would be able to see that.