Yet concussion doesn’t require you to be unconscious.

100%, but Marshall was suddenly out cold. If he’d have had concussion issues, he’d had been on his feet trying to prove there’s nothing up with him and the doctor would be telling him the opposite, don’t kid me, your concussed and you’re having a rest for a week. Rugby players try to hide injury. Marshall did the opposite. He’s let Wigan down and I’d be pretty pist if that was a Wire player that tried a stunt like that.

You’re comments fall down when you take into account that he went off and failed a HIA therefore he is having a rest for a week.

The bottom line is he got kicked (or shinned if you prefer) in the head which caused him to loose the ball. If direct contact with the head is not a penalty then I don’t know what it.

Whether it is accidental, careless, reckless or malicious will only determine what, if any punishment is necessary.

Just like the last two seasons under the clown. Yet we've extended the clowns contact twice. Baffling.

it was a hugely disappointing result and shows exactly where we as a club are at the moment, barely able to compete with a Warrington side that had been ravaged by Covid that caused 9 of their first team squad to either miss the game, or struggle through it.

God help us if we'd been facing a fully fit Warrington side.

You haven’t understood my post. Of course he failed the HIA. Because he cracked on he was knocked out. He wasn’t, he blagged it. We’ve all blagged it. We’ve all blagged a doctor. My point was, he wasn’t knocked out and then a few seconds later was. So how can my post fall down as you point out?
He’s let Wigan down as he’s unavailable for selection by carrying out and on a kid-ology. Leave that to football players to roll over 5 times and have the worst leg injury in the last 100 years.

I’ve no argument about the technicalities of the penalty or not. The point being Marshall acted the goat. Was it worth the bluff to try and get the call on a penalty and exempt himself from error, however small or sole.
Let’s be honest, Marshall should have handled that ball better, a brush against Charnley’s shin should not have caused him to lose possession. He knew that and that’s where the bluff got played.

So he was that desperate to blag it, he conned the doc in to thinking he was concussed and therefore ruled himself out of the next game?

You’ve somehow outdone yourself Duckie

I think that would be covered under the careless part of the rule so that covers accidental contact. I can only remember accidental head clashes or contact with head not in possession being overlooked as non offences in last few seasons.

Careless isn't the same as accidental. We can talk about whether he was careless/reckless, and if he was then he needs penalising and red carding given the severity of the offence, but an accidental kick is not a penalty no matter how many times people claim it as fact. I've just watched it back this morning, there is less than a second between Marshall dropping to the floor and Charnley making contact. I don't think it's even careless from Charnley, he's just chasing after a loose ball.

It's not so much the letter of the law, it's how they are interpreted, especially in the current climate on head injuries. We've all heard refs on mike say to players, I'm sorry, I realise it was accidental, but it's still a penalty.

couldn't have put it better myself Lam is getting more and more annoying as the season goes by!

The rule is very blunt. There’s no sub rules as I’m aware.
A kick, trip or strike is misconduct.
So it is dependent on the referees interpretation.
So did Charnley kick Marshall in the head, or was it contact with the head.
Certainly Charnley made no action to indicate a kicking motion.

If we're definitely running with Peet and Lockers next season, we may as well make that switch now.

We fluffed so many chances….. that’s not down to coaching, that’s down to players. The coaching is aimed to create chances, it’s the players job to convert them into points.

I think you are confusing chances with possesion in the Wire 25

So why are penalties given when a player carrying the ball slips before contact resulting in contact to the head from a defender attempting to tackle around waist height, but now hits the head because of the slip ?
Surely that is accidental??

Exactly my thoughts.

A mate of mine came for the first time since Wane was the Head Coach last night. His comments nailed it for me; he noticed straight away the intensity was incomparable to a few seasons ago.

Upon reflection this morning, I am increasingly frustrated. Warrington were extremely poor; they had not trained in 3 weeks but yet comfortably won in that second half. Yes, we were unlucky to go in at halftime behind but can you imagine the reaction in that 2nd half under Wane?

It's all well and good Lam stating time and time again that 'we are closer to who we are and want to be' but losing that game to that particular Warrington side was a new low for me. They had numerous players out injured/COVID-related and had a prop on one of their wings. I think we just have to hope to make the top 6 and go from there. We must hope that the likes of Hardaker, Field and Bateman make a huge difference. I'm not confident that they will.

I think it’s harsh his comment but if you look at the actual replay not the live action the player does look up to see where the ball had gone.I

Someone in the away end last night had a brilliant throwing arm! They managed to throw a bottle on to the pitch and it landed nearly on the 25! Classy.

I’m not. I’m responding to the OP.

It does happen and is very annoying as it appears to be a 100% given. I get the duty of care aspect, but the defender should be judged less harshly IMO, but I suppose that would require an interpretation by officials and we can all get into another round of debate especially when viewed in real time and slow motion

I didn't say it was the same I said covered under that rule. Like if a ball carrying player slips into a tacklers already committed position causing impact with the head on arm, which is often under a second and accidental as well, you even get refs saying and you must have witnessed "I know it's accidental but it's a penalty?" . I also don't think it's reckless or careless but it's interpretation is regular under that rule with any un deliberate head contact.
I also don't think that players slipping into contact should be a pen under the careless part of the rule, it's part and parcel of a high impact contact sport but if your going off how the rules are being judged it was obviously a pen, I don't know how you could see it any other way?

So you don't think it should be a penalty and neither do the officials. Sounds like the correct outcome was achieved. Seriously, it's daft this. It's like we're annoyed with the officials for not giving the wrong decision. Wire fans are laughing at us on their board over our reaction to this, and rightfully so.

you from warrington by any chance?

No it's just hypocritical. The refs are quick to pen us for anything and everything & that's before you get to the judiciary and what they see. But when one of our lads gets booted in the head, it's play on, nothing to see here. You then throw in the fact they didn't even go to the video ref and it's starting to confirm the bias many suspect.

It's the same old story tho, refs are protected and every week they get defended for making calls that have major impacts on the game.

Nothing will ever change as long as the waggons are circled and you all to$$ each other off after a game, shouting into your echo chamber of how good of a job your doing. What makes even worse are opposition fans who'll just go along with it because they won, but are too dumb to realise it will happen to them soon. That's why I backed McManus a few years back, even though some of our fans were loving it.