Slightly more concerning to me about that game was that it was niggly all the way through and resulted in at least 3 "handbags" incidents and at least 3 warnings to the captains, [uand NO further action for any of it. [/u

Are they implying that everything was OK?

Our great game is in danger of being irreversibly damaged by referees. Whilst referees should be given respect both on and off the field for the difficult job they have in making the right decisions, their officiating is in danger of losing the professional edge and making the game a mockery for players and public alike. Too many prima-donna refs - both past and present - are lording it, both on and off the pitch, and spoiling the game. Accountability comes first. Get it sorted RFL. FC & Proud

Obviously not as stupid as you. flanders flings his arm back into connor's face resulting in him needing to leave the field for a head test. If it had happened to tomkins he'd still be rolling around on the KC pitch

I reckon ex-pros/refs views on foul play are worth listening to, but try/no try - they're like everyone else, simply giving an opinion like you or me.

Yet the only thing deemed not good by the panel is the first hit on Sneyd that they say could/should have been a penalty. I don't think the officials even saw it

but the video ref would have

watts should never have been sent off. His arm wasn't out anywhere near enough to have been a deliberate attempt to injure and the only reason the injury occurred was due mcillorum's gash tackling technique. If he'd hit him where he should then he wouldn't have been anywhere near watts' elbow. It's likely cost us 2 points but we dust off and move on. Hopefully we'll get to play wigan again this year with a near fit side and 13 men on the pitch so we can show them yet again who are the better team

Agree with the above, it was a chippy game from the opening tackle with McIlorum trying to drive Watts' head into the pitch followed in the same set the late hit on Sneyd (which non of the officials saw) and so the tone was set and continued. The fact the neither Connor, Tomkins, McIlorum, Kelly etc have not been named by the disciplinary with SO'L only getting one and Wigans only one, yet Griffin, Houghton and Watts is a concern. Then again the week before the St's v Wigan game was pretty chippy and again nothing brought up.

What is annoying and the reason why the fans of this sport are growing restless with the officials & the disciplinary is the way they cover up poor decisions/officiating and their explanation a prime example of ineptitude.

“Player carrying ball in and begins to change direction and brace for impact from defender who is approaching player at speed from the inside. Elbow and forearm of player are not promoted. Contact made between head of opponent and front of arm of opponent. Sending Off Sufficient,” the RFL stated on their website

1. The disciplinary panel admit the elbow/arm was not promoted by Watts.
2. Defender approaches with speed and from the inside.
3. The panel go on to say contact is made between head of opponent & front of arm of opponent.

Yet they deem sending of suffcient??? WTF!!!! If they admit as they clearly have Watts never promoted the elbow or arm then what offence has he committed other than being Liam Watts? So what is a player supposed to do in the situation? stick their hands behind their backs or play with cushions strapped to their arms?

The RFL would have gained much more credibility and respect had they said the above statement but with a summary of 'Incorrect intervention by VR and incorrect on field decision, red card rescinded'

Otherwise what they have now said is any defending player ballsing up their tackling technique and getting a whack on the bonce is the attacking players fault and will be classed as a red card offence.

I understand the need to safeguard players but the number of penalties and red/yellow cards being given for accidental/unfortunate contact with opponents' heads is getting ridiculous now. For me, unless there is a deliberate attempt to injure or a completely reckless challenge then there needs to be a better balance of who is at fault

Great news and common sense prevails.

Just hope we don't have Hicks on Thursday.

Assault?







Seriously, even a penalty for that would have been one of the softest the sport had ever seen. He goes for the charge down and barely brushes Sneyd. There is probably a fingertip of contact and you want him charged, yet Watts' raised elbow makes full contact with MM's jaw and knocks him out and cry that the RFL are picking on you? You lot are quickly making yourselves a laughing stock here. Give your heads a wobble.

You not read the RFL Disciplinary charge and summary I take it? guessing you haven't with the bit of your post I've highlighted in bold. If you had you would have noticed the panel have clearly stated that Watts arm or elbow were not 'promoted'. This confirms it was a bad decision to give a card and was McIlorums poor attempt at trying to put a big hit on Watts, in essence a bit like trying to go head on against a bus only riding a bike.

I've copied and pasted the RFL statement for you (sorry I don't have any pictures but it's not joined up writing so you should be ok)

“Player carrying ball in and begins to change direction and brace for impact from defender who is approaching player at speed from the inside. Elbow and forearm of player are not promoted. Contact made between head of opponent and front of arm of opponent. Sending Off Sufficient,” the RFL stated on their website

Wigan fans ignore things that doesn't go in their favour, Marshalls foot on the dead ball line at Wembley the perfect example.

and you cant have a go at their players either

I've read it. They do not say the elbow was not raised, because of course it was. As anyone can see the arm moves away from Watts' body and into MM's jaw. The RFL decision was to charge Watts and to consider the sending off sufficient, which clearly supports the on field decision, you know, the opposite of proving it wrong. I understood this, it seems you did not, despite it not being joined up writing, as you say. Thanks for the laugh though. Perhaps next time you want to try and be a smart you'll make sure you understand what you're talking about before insinuating someone else doesn't.

Thanks, you're reply has just proven my initial thoughts that you struggle to understand the written word with your second sentence.

If you're surprised I presume you've never been to wigan

And such is the force and pent up aggression of Watts lethal weapon of a left arm, McIlorum literally bounces off in the opposite direction as though poleaxed by the mighty Thor himself.........

But no, Watts fairly relaxed arm is forcefully pushed back into this torso by a Ram Man esque tackle attempt from possible the worse technique shown all season.

If a red card was given for an elbow to the face, the ban would have been 4-6 games. That no ban is forthcoming is the realisation it was an incorrect call. To end up with sending off sufficient, is the RFL attempting to back the inept officials involved.

HTH...

Reading really is not your strong point.
[i"Elbow and forearm of player are [unot[/u promoted." [/i

Promoted is a synonym for raised, lead, elevated, advanced... Need I go on?

I just don't understand how they can basically say he has done nothing, yet come to the conclusion that he should have been sent off?

I could be wrong, but have the RFL ever said "referee/officials were wrong"?

Do you know the difference between malicious and reckless? I'll give you a clue, it has something to do with that word "promote".

Not quite correct. The word promote is specific to intentional actions. I understand that nuance and why it's correct for the RFL to state that. Believe me when I say I take no pleasure in this, I genuinely cringe whenever someone on the internet attempts to belittle someone else's understanding of English whilst displaying their own ignorance.

I genuinely don't think you understand what the word promote means.