i dont agree.
fielden got up and stood on the correct mark as first marker.......the wire player then tried to move a yard forward to play the ball making it look like fielden was interfering.
penalty to wigan imo for wire player moving off the mark.

but every tackle it seems players move 2 yard forward before playing the ball.
if we wanted to be pedantic we would be seeing penalties at every play the ball.

Nah, I disagree on this one.

Fielden wasn;t even stood up, he was still on one knee, refusing to move backwards away from the tackled player with his hands in the air.

If he wasn;t trying to interfere, why would he have his hands in the air, claiming he wasn;t interfering, and why was he on one knee. I agree that the penalty could have gone the other way, as Carvell made a meal of it, however I think Fielden made it easy for the penalty to go against him. Had he stepped back, he would have had a case for appealing for a penalty. As he didn;t the penalty was always going to go against him. He needs to clear the ruck, and he didn;t.

Penalty was right, as a defending player you know that if you don't get out of the way you're in trouble. He was being a dumb meathead by standing his ground rather than getting out of the way, maybe if he'd moved the penalty would have gone the other way. Then as if he hasn't hampered us enough this season he swears at the ref, get O'Carroll in there!

He had already cleared the rook, but hadn't regained his feet (he was actually on both his knees). Carvell then moved off the mark into him.

I'd agree it was a penalty that could've of gone either way, but I think Fieldens frustration was that it was [ianother[/i penalty that went against Wigan. He had a point too.

Carvell should have played the ball on the spot where he was tackled, not 1 metre forward.

Fielden deliberately kept his hands away from the ball and Carvell. It was never a Warrington penalty hence both Fieldens and Nobles frustration.

And not half so scary as Sean Long's hair!!!

Fielden wasn't doing anything to pevent Carvell playing the ball.

If Carvell stands up on the mark he has no problem playing the ball.

Nothing wrong with what Fielden did and when you are 1 ft from your own line the last thing you do is step back and give the attacker more ground.

Was definately no penalty and led to a try - bad decision.

I've just watched it again. The replay clearly shows that the penalty is actually given whilst Carvell is still on the ground, and by the time he stands up (much less than 1m forward) the ref has blown up.

Fielden does not clear the ruck quickly enough. He is trying to win the wrestle, and he gives a penalty. I had last seen it a couple of days ago when I first commented on this, however just watching it again now, it was 100% clear. Carvell doesn't even get to play the ball.

I know the commentators aren't exactly the most knowledgable, but Stevo certainly agreed it was a penalty and stated it was quite clear that Fielden didn't clear the ruck.

one match ban for raising the knee but found not guilty for abusive language

- cant they lip read

They are complete jokers.

Bent B'stards

Yea they can, but Fielden claimed it was aimed at an opponent and not the ref.
A blaitant lie but hard to prove I would have thought.

A ban for him raising the knee has been coming for a while on the back of a couple of warnings.

As much as he's not been at his best whilst at Wigan and he did get man handled on Friday he'll still be quite a big loss.

Fieldens 'decent' form is better then most props 'good' form.

It's probably not much use trying to reason - but as has been pointed out Carvell didn't move off the mark because he wasn't even stood up. Fielden held him done for a long period which was almost enough for a penalty in itself, and then kneeled right in front of him. In my opinion the penalty was harsh but given Fielden made no effort to get out of the way, and was not being held back by Carvell, it's hard to argue against it. Every week in Super League penalties are given where players do not make an effort to clear the play the ball, and acting like a petulent child afterwards doesn't make it a wrong decision.
The lack of a charge for foul language is a strange one.

Club might be appealing the ban yet.

It's like the old song. If the right one don't get you then the left one will.
He was going to get done for one of the offences.

Except why would you possibly call an opponent bent? There's only one person on the field you'd aim that at (assuming the "cheating" meaning as opposed to another).

RFL once again showing themselves to be a joke.

But then, why would you care with a name like that ????

On crutches

a bigger punishment would be making him play the rest of the season without having a game off.

suspending him for one game punishes Salford

Nice joke pal, you sure showed us

i wish i had his wit.

I see the Dire have won their cup final.