[urlhttps://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sport/18788029.super-league-round-15-disciplinary-update/[/url

THE RFL'S Match Review Panel have ruled upon several incidents from The Wire's defeat to Wigan Warriors on Friday.

Willie Isa will not face any further action for the tackle in the air on Jake Mamo that saw him sin-binned in the early stages of the match at Headingley.

The panel minutes reveal they believed referee Chris Kendall's on-field decision to show Isa a yellow card was sufficient punishment.

Interestingly, however, the minutes also suggest the Warriors' first try in their 18-14 victory should not have stood.


When reviewing a 25th-minute tackle on Blake Austin by Wigan's Oliver Partington, the panel believe the tackle should have resulted in a Warrington penalty.

The minutes read: "Player makes tackle on opponent with forearm to lower arm of opponent. Player makes secondary contact with shoulder to opponent’s head. Worthy of onfield penalty."

After the tackle, Partington picked up the ball and sprinted up to the Wire tryline and from the next play, Joe Greenwood crossed.

I thought the penalty try was crackers, so I call that 1-1. I always thought a penalty try had to be based on you having near certainty the attacker would’ve scored. The ball was bobbling all over the place and was short of the line when contact was made. It could’ve took a poor bounce and been dropped quite easily, he could’ve tried to kick it on and put too much power on it etc. The challenge was debatable as to how fair it was as well. In football terms ‘he got the ball’ but granted he got the man as well. That should’ve been a penalty and ten minutes in the bin for me at worst.

I understand the need to protect players and hits to the head etc, but when players are not fully vertical, ie they are on their way down, what is a player supposed to do? You've lined up the tackle to hit the chest and end up hitting the head. No malice in it, just something that happens in a sport played at speed.

Won't be long before we have the union rule of nothing above the chest "just in case"

One of those that goes with the refs call on field. I have no issue with that, but if you send something to the video you obbiously aren't sure/don't have a clue so the video ref should have a blank page to work with.

Fully agree on all points. He had to give it because that’s what the ref had given on the field but if you don’t send it up with a decision attached to it, the VR looks at it and surely must have doubts that he’s definitely scoring that try. I think he probably would’ve scored from that position but had Manfredi applied some legal pressure, you see plenty of those which don’t get finished.

Yet no mention of Austin attempting to unscrew Zak's head. Strange times we live in.

Terry O’Connor voice-

“He’s knocked on there, it’s a knock on, he’s knocked on, knock on, knock on, but but but knock on”

From the disciplinary review.

Case Number: ON/531/20
Name: Blake Austin

Player makes contact over the shoulder of opponent.
Footage does not demonstrate player having a grip on
opponent or making dangerous contact on opponent.

The disciplinary are just making it up as they go along, secondary contact ?

What about Hills blatant double movement. Surely we should be posthumously awarded a pen

Barrie Mac said it wasn't a double movement, he just moved the ball towards the line.

Near certainty is a bit far. The exact terms are 'if in the referees opinion a try would have been scored.' on that basis it is subjective, but not as high a requirement as yours. So yes in my opinion a try would have been scored, I agree with the call. Manfredi would have been binned if it was only deemed a penalty by the way so do factor that in.

That’s what I thought it should’ve been, a penalty and a sin binning as I stated. Maybe it’s how they’ve always interpreted the rule and because for many years we saw very very few given but if somebody asks me ‘do I think he scores in that situation?’ I say ‘probably’ but it’s not like the ball is sat in the in goal and he just needs to fall on it. There is enough doubt there, enough things that can go wrong to go for a penalty and a sin binning. If the wording is ‘would he have scored’ then the best I can get to is ‘probably’ but I’m not sure that should be enough. If we look at Sam Powell’s early in the season, he has possession already and is literally in the process of grounding the ball. In this case the man is yet to take possession or make it to the in goal. He has to get through a couple of stages before getting as far as grounding the ball over the line.

End of the day he gives it so fair enough. It’s not a horror call but nor is the Partington one.

Edited for accuracy.

I've got to say that I've started to think Wigan did the dirty on O'Connor or something. His bias is quite remarkable at times. Other fans go on about Wigan bias because most of the commentary team once played for Wigan (understandable I guess) but Carney left on very bad terms, Barrie Mac is Leeds through and through, Phil Clarke is so busy trying to be neutral that he ends up being pro-everyone-but-Wigan and O'Conner..well, he's just bizzare! I swear if a Wigan player had his head taken clean off his shoulders O'Connor would complain about the blood on his shirt!

I've said it before, and much as I hate to admit it, I think the formulation they have in RU is much better. They have two options; if the ref thinks it's a try, it's "any reason I can't award the try?" and if he genuinely isn't sure, it's "Try ~ yes or no?". I think that is better than forcing the on-field ref to make a call, which then loads the dice for the VR.

Since when does the disciplinary panel rule on tries?

I also like that they have until the kicker lines up the kick to go the screen. It's almost like VAR but better

He was the same with the penalty try, literally just refusing to even entertain the fact it could be anything but. It took Bill Arthur, who had initially agreed it was cast iron, to then cast some doubt on it but O’Connor just shut him down. He didn’t do that with any reasoning but just talks louder and repeats himself that it’s a penalty try. There just seems to be zero willingness to even debate decisions with him sometimes when it’s come to Wigan. It’s all just black and white, knock on, penalty try, forward pass and so on and all against Wigan usually. I don’t think he has anything against Wigan as such but I think he’s going too far in not wanting to sound bias towards an ex club and it’s just pushed him the other way.

They don't and they didn't.

Well, 'comment', rather than 'rule', I guess was the point.

Exactly what we said about Hills sending off at start of the season!

Except the player was already down at that stage as he was trying to dive over the line.

And from behind
And a swinging arm