Most people would now agree that MM was stupid and deserved a ban. The question is whether the incident should have gone on report to be delt with later as has been the case in most off the ball fouls.
This case now questions the video ref and when he can intervene. The RL say he can only adjudicate in try award decisions when asked by the referee, but it is clear in this case that the video ref (Ganson) sent MM off. Mr Child and the two touch judges were willing to allow play on.
If a video ref can now advise the match referee why is this not being made clear by the governing body. If the video ref now has more power to control a match then all matches must have cameras and a VR, we now have two standard of games, ones that are on Sky and those not. We don't have a level playing field.
If a try is allowed when it is clear to the video ref that an infringement has taken place why does he not advise the ref aka the Hardacre for Leeds during the CC semi-final after a clear knock on by Maguire.
Untill the RL make a statement to clarify this issue then we will get more calls of bias and corruption in our game.

I wasn't even close to being an attempt at a "tackle", he deliberately went to do him, its a 3 game ban and rightly so. He's let the team, the fans and the club down.

Ok, if you're actually saying woody was unprovoked throwing that punch, then I think you've lost the right to be in this conversation. Turn your computer off and walk away.

and that sums it up in one simple sentence

there is a difference between playing on, and playing advantage.

VR involvement in games has been going on for years. Puletua was sent off against Catalans on the say so of the VR.

Its odd that 11 pages in, punishment given, and most people agreeing with said punishment, that not many opposition fans don't want to discuss this, and would rather compare A's tackle to B's tackle... This is by far the bigger issure here, how the officials handle the game as it is played.

Sorry but I don’t understand this post. What has one thing got to do with the other? Both points may be correct but have no relevance to each other IMO, to say that someone is good enough to play in one game and has made a serious error in another and to pass both opinions does not seem perverse to me. If that is what you’re trying to say that is?

I think MM is a very good player who like Gaz Hock plays with a lot of passion, but like Hock often that passion is shown in the wrong way. That kind of passion doesn’t help anyone, him the team SW the fans or the club. The kind of passion needed is the Kris Radlinski George Carmont type. If players want to grandstand let it be with their abilities not inabilities. When I first saw the MM incident I was inclined to give him some benefit of the doubt but on watching it at home over again and thinking about his past behaviour (and not just what others have said) I have got to say he must change, for the sake of everyone who loves the club and the sport, I believe Hock is trying, now he must learn and try harder too!

I think that's a fair call. Hock does appear to be trying to control himself. It's called "growing up".
MM should try it.

The question you have to ask is: would a Leeds player be banned for the entire playoffs at the point?
Wasn't Webb actually spared a ban ,ast season for a 2-3 game offense at this point?

I know they're gonna appeal but realistically he's only going to drop to 2 matches if successful. That would mean that we would play Logan Tomkins for two games and if we get to the final would then drop the guy that's helped us get there for McIlorum. It's a tad unfair.

That's sport. I don't think we'll see Logan in the team though. Not with Smith and Tommy around.

Agree. It's a straight switch between MM and Smith imo.

RFL have confirmed that McIlloroum will appeal the ban - embarrassing.

So if someone is provoked that makes it OK to punch them?

Not sure why it's embarrassing?

I'm not surprised he got banned (though if that includes a Grand Final, it would be harsh). But as things stand he's gone for the season, so he might as well appeal it. He's nothing to lose, and neither have Wigan.

And please nobody say we could lose respect. We don't have much of that in the eyes of our opponents anyway.

double post

so in this case we should appeal every single decision made by the RFL because the player and club have nothing to lose in doing so?

I am sorry but its a fair argument to say McIllorum got off lightly for him to appeal this decision is just nonsense.

3 games is very harsh i've seen worse and get no fine or sending off

Micky mac up untill the last 5 weeks has been awesome hit hard in the tackle and played rugby but now we are seeing the other side of his game which we all thought was gone and all this is down to is frustration i dont think some fans know how much the injuries have had on us this season not loads but to key players who play a massive role in what we do best

Pat- i made a post a after he first got injured about the worry on the wing and how many chances Gelling had bombed let me tell you if he was playing v Hull kr we would have lost no way he would have done the things Pat did

Tommy- when he first got injured i thought we would be fine how wrong i was it was a huge blow the quality and speed of the ball between the dummy halfs was dire at best locky cant play at 6, He and the club thought he was out for the season (see pemps sig



) why do you think we chucked cash at Salford for Smith he's shocked himself and everyone by getting back this season but still not 100% and i'm worried now Micky is banned if he's up to 80 mins

Lima/Prescott/Hansen- i know we have had injures in the pack on and off but these 3 all went around the same time when you take the class of these guys and replace them with young inexperienced lads your going to have problems and big ones when it comes down to Wanes 'plan b' which is run over the opposition and smash them everywhere and in this day and age doesn't work like at Hull kr you smash them up the middle what are they going to do? run it out wide

Wigan don't appeal every judgement, so your first point carries no weight.

If they decide that to leave the ban in place means they'll be unduly weakened during the play-offs, then I'm glad they're appealing.

Call people's views nonsense if you wish, but opinions are clearly divided as to whether the ban is harsh or fair, and yours is no more important than anyone else's.

No they have nothing to lose because he's already banned for the rest of the season and he shouldn't get another game as the tariff was 2-3 games.

Must say I expected 2 taking into account the time he got sent off. Mainly due to beng late and his previous rather than the intent, but hey ho thats the way it goes.