No - He said he doesn't think players slipping into a tackle and contact being made with head should be a Penalty - But it is
He's saying same thing here

Lets say a player dives on a loose ball - Can the tackler just run past him and make contact with his head (Surely it's reckless to not know that your going to make contact with his head) whilst he's on the ground? And even if the reaction time is a second or so, Marshall hasn't lost the ball at that point, he only loses it after the contact, Due to the clash.
Has the exact scenario ever had a rule written down? I would doubt it, and if the ball had already come loose and Charnley had picked the ball up I may say on balance play on (Here I go again saying use common sense - It'll never catch on) I'd say fair enough.

Remember Charnley didn't even pick the ball up - He was running that fast when he made contact he was 2/3 yards past the player when he fell - If he was looking to pick the ball up he'd be stood over the player almost stationery, Once he sees Marshall diving for the ball why isn't he trying to effect the tackle?
He can't see a loose ball (Because there wasn't one) so as soon as he sees Marshall dive for the ball (and gain possession) his only action should be to tackle him. Can see on the replay Brown saying he thought Charnley was trying to "dig out" the ball.
Whether he was or wasn't - The clash with his feet to Marshalls head created the loss of the ball - I bet you can't point to a rule that says that's ok Intentional or not?

As you say, it isn't written down as it is interpretation. They're quite poor at writing laws down, and even worse at communicating them to fans. The nearest comparison I can think of is a stray boot to the head when a defender ends up at the back of the tackle. You will get one of them every round, no penalty and people just say 'bad luck, tough sport'.

I think he's upright there anticipating the ball maybe bouncing in a place where he can kick it on or catch it, or maybe ready to tackle Marshall if he catches it upright. Instead Marshall dives on it at Charnley's feet. I can't get into Charnley's head to know for sure but it does look to me like he genuinely just trips over him at speed. Part of this is that you wouldn't just penalise a kick to the head, if you're saying there's any level of intent/recklessness there then he can't stay on the pitch for doing something so dangerous. If would be red card and ban.

Out of interest, if Hicks had put time off there, how would you expect play to restart? Marshall lost it backwards so can't really give a knock on against him. Do we assume he's tackled and give Wigan the ball back even though he dropped it? Tell Mamo to play it where he picked it up? Go back to the previous play the ball before Wigan threw the bad pass? Give Wigan a fresh set of 6 (play irregularly effected - territorial advantage?)?

I thought the same on the Gildart one - and you see other times VR's looking in minute detail if a player is touched etc. when dropping a ball etc. I'd also like a different angle of the Clarke/Partington penalty from the drop out
To me Clarke jumps thinking Partington is going to and actually Partington just stands his ground and Clarke falls over.
No way does Partington "Shepherd" Clarke away from the ball

But - an I think you know my position on Lam from almost day one

10 decent performances in almost 3 years (70ish games) isn't good enough

When were good were actually no better than average
When were average were Poor
And when were poor were Shambolic!!!

We never get more out of a game than we should
Were rubbish

And the Culture has been eroded over the last 2/3 years

No on 2 points

1/ I never said the game should be stopped - Your putting the exact opposite words into my mouth
I'm quite alright him going to the VR 10 seconds later and in the mean time Marshall gets whatever treatment he needs - Where have I said differently ???
You will 100% disagree - but I wrote a couple of weeks ago about referees spending that much time being told stuff that if this happens, this must happen next, reviewing thousands of scenarios thinking the next one will be exactly the same so we MUST do the same thing we practiced for etc. to justify going full time.
When all they need to do is pick their heads up and be allowed to see the game that's in front of them, not what was hypothetically discussed in a class room over and over again weeks/months earlier.
I'm not going to elaborate but that's whats happening here.

Secondly - you say :- " it isn't written down as it is interpretation"
Then say the nearest thing you can come up with is a stray boot at the play the ball - 99% of the time a stray boot at the PTB is on a prone defender who is in and around lying on the floor in the ruck - He isn't in possession of the ball
I've never see a stray boot injure the player in possession of the ball lied on the floor, unless he was intentionally being kicked or a kicking motion to ick the ball was being performed.

But it happened - so you cant draw parallels to a completely different scenario and say it's the same outcome.

He probably wanted his supper - Kendall would still be looking at it now

Philbin was acting also as he walked off the pitch....

the ball wasnt loose

After all this arguing I can't understand why Union is more popular and currently miles more watchable....I understand their rules as in any contact with the head is a penalty. We're all debating that. I watched the hockey in the Olympics and the ball can't touch the foot and it's accepted as a rule. Only in rugby League currently is this fact up for debate. There was no intention and it was an accidental.... The level of injury should always be inconsequential. It happened and Marshal failed the his hia. To me it's a penalty as harsh as it is against cjarnley. I don't even blame the ref as rugby League is shooting itself all the time with great ideas...... It's never consistent and therefore this debate is happening. It's why unless you're involved/been brought up with/played the game then no people are attracted to the game. I may be wrong and that's ok, but that's my opinion...... The way I see it contact to the head is a penalty regardless of intent or it's down to the referees discretion. I've been watching rugby League for 32 years and even I don't know what's the right decision. I'm also biased in wigans favour but to be fair the players didn't look like they knew what's happening. I'm trying to be fair here and I understand why Union is more widely watched as the rules can be explained. If I was trying to show a new fan now and explain the rules to them then I really don't know where to start. Sorry for the long message

Watching Liam Moore tonight referee Hull vs Leeds and thinking it should be used as a training video for the other refs in how to carry yourself. He is in total control, shows an authority on the field but deals with players in a really respectful manner and has been having a good laugh with them at points.

Absolute chalk and cheese to the on field manner of guys like Thaler, Hicks and especially Child (he could be the training video on how not to carry yourself on the field).

Perhaps he was, but he isn’t putting the team under pressure by not being available next Sunday.

Liam Moore is the best ref in the comp
Has been for 18months

maybe wire will call another game off....if not he wont be available so will be putting them under pressure by not being there

Digression I know, but does it strike anyone else that while all this debate si going on (rightly) in both rugby codes about the danger of blows to the head (and both have examples who bear witness to that), meanwhile boxing, where the principle purpose is apply blows to the head, is deemed OK?

It’s extremely unlikely. Wire like Wigan need to play games and need to win to have any chance of the easy route to the GF.
It’s Saints who have played the C-19 (if there was one) to suit a top 2 birth. Wire have played too many games and had too many losses like Wigan.
Hence both Wire and Wigan backing up on Sunday.
Realistically Wigan will be after nailing a 4th spot.
Wire haven’t given up on 2nd but Saints lack of games played is making it difficult for us.

No more needs to be said

but circumstance is still favourable to them….if your trying to suggest that I don’t believe C-19 exist by highlighting a portion of my post to do so, you’re a stupid idiot. If you wasn’t. I don’t know what you’re trying to point out.
I certainly know the consequence of C-19. Friends of mine have died through it and I’ve been shielding my father for almost 2 years, he is high risk.

I apologise
I took your post as being CV19 (If it really exists)

I have lost Friends & Family also

Once again - Apologies for misunderstanding

PS
Some of the clubs (And the RFL) need to take a long hard look at themselves with their approach during this period (Particularly in the last 3months) and I do 100% believe that some have abused/played the system

You’re an alright fella Juke.

I don't no ..... but if official's interpretation of the rules is like it has been used by all refs for around three seasons, or more, then it is a penalty no matter how you try to spin what I wrote. So no the correct outcome wasn't achieved in accordance with how other games have been officiated. Did you read what I wrote? Because your making up what was written twisting it out of context and then answering your own made up viriations to prove a point. So your either didn't read it or understand. I imagine you did read it and run out of ideas. Wire fans laughing, well when have they not after they win against us?
For me .... while I'm frustrated at the loss, that game was another stepping stone back to some kind of form. I have run out of patience with Lam but I have found the way we have played before he got here frustrating. That decision though I can separate because it was poor, it's inconsistent same has many others does not mean it should not be highlighted and discussed.

I don't no ..... but if official's interpretation of the rules is like it has been used by all refs for around three seasons, or more, then it is a penalty no matter how you try to spin what I wrote. So no the correct outcome wasn't achieved in accordance with how other games have been officiated hope that's clear enough for you. Did you read what I wrote? Because your twisting what I wrote out of context and then answering your own made up viriations to prove a point. So you either didn't read it or understand it. I imagine you did read it, and ran out of ideas. Wire fans laughing, well when have they not after they win against us?
For me .... while I'm frustrated at the loss, that game was another stepping stone back to some kind of form. I have run out of patience with Lam but I have found the way we have played before he got here frustrating. That decision though I can separate because it was poor, it's inconsistent same has many others does not mean it should not be highlighted and discussed.

If Lam is so bad as the Coach, why has he not been sacked by Lenagan?

Could the reason be that Wigan have not got the finance to offer another Coach a better contract than what Lam has got?

Time that some supporters took the blinkers off and faced the reality that Wigan is no longer the biggest and best financed club on this side of the Pennines.

Leicester won the Prem in football didn't make them bigger than Liverpool or Man U. Seeing Wire have not won the title in a long time (sorry I can't remember exactly) they are not even equivalent to a Leicester. Even if they won everything for a period of time I'm guessing we would all be pushing up daisies before they past Widnes never mind Saints and Wigan.

Were not perfect, but were third in the table with a 75% win ratio, your comment just seems to be a bitter one, in the context of SL where Castleford are 42%. Not saying were the real deal and will get to OT, but the opportunity is still there (and for Wigan). SP is not everyone's cup of tea, and most supporters are looking forward to a new man at the helm in 2022. In the meantime, take it on the chin, as there are more important games yet to come.

Were you there RD? You told everyone on the Warrington board that you wouldn't attend a game of rugby as you didn't want to pass on Covid to your elderly father, who has health issues. Either you've told a massive porky on our board, or you haven't personally seen this happen.

Advantage MorePlaymakersNeeded