Post subject: Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2024 1:09 pm
Zig
First Team Player
Joined: Jun 04 2022 Posts: 2235
Stu M wrote:It's much easier though to give a kid a debut as part of a settled side that is winning every week and has fewer injuries.
It would be suicidal for Wellens to give a debut to someone on Friday as part of a team low in confidence, lost the last 2 games and could conceivably be without 8 first teamers i.e would be part of a full strength 1-17, Wingfield wouldn't so I've not included him but with Mbye banned that's 9 out even if Clark is back and that's not guaranteed yet.
Eight first teamers Stu, who are those and who would they replace?
Post subject: Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2024 1:19 pm
NickyKiss
International Board Member
Joined: Nov 08 2004 Posts: 29744 Location: WIGAN
Stu M wrote:It's much easier though to give a kid a debut as part of a settled side that is winning every week and has fewer injuries.
It would be suicidal for Wellens to give a debut to someone on Friday as part of a team low in confidence, lost the last 2 games and could conceivably be without 8 first teamers i.e would be part of a full strength 1-17, Wingfield wouldn't so I've not included him but with Mbye banned that's 9 out even if Clark is back and that's not guaranteed yet.
It is but Wellens has had the opportunity to give some debuts out earlier this season, as part of stronger sides and sides playing pretty well and didn't take it. It's not easy in fairness to him and I would say the Saints crop of youngsters are in the main a year or so younger than our crop and there has been more disruption at Saints with injuries (what's happened to that game leading/ground breaking medical department that was responsible for the lack of injuries in the past? It was never about luck I was told by some Saints fans, so I presume they've left the club) but there's no doubting Wellens is quite cautious.
All out along with Wingfield who would be next in line for any of the forwards missing above. Apparently Clark is back but if not that's ten established players.
Post subject: Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2024 2:59 pm
Jukesays
Club Owner
Joined: Mar 30 2004 Posts: 7779 Location: Sorting my Erection out & Helping Conroy With his!
Geese wrote:If we're at the point that accidental head collisions get players disciplined, the future is bleak. It would have been no different to Nu Brown's red card earlier this season.
Comparing apples and oranges and being too simplistic
Cooper cannot stand upright amd make direct contact with attackers head, he had to get his head to the side or lower to avoid direct contact Whilst it may not be intentional as such its poor technique and exactly what the rule was brought in for, to avoid direct head contacts which i believe are the worst type in terms of damage done
Comparison to Nu brown is ridiculous, the attackers head moved, deviated from its original trajectory because of an Iinitial.contact by another player and contacted his head secondary, the pure definition of accidental as he didn't put his head in the direct path of the attackers head
Fans Forum 28.08.08 Fan from Haydock
"I've got one word for you Mr Chairman - Penalty Count"
[quote="The Daddy"]I've got one word for you all......Steve Hanley[/quote]
Some Salford fan said to me and I quote "You are by far and away the most Handsome & Knowledgeable Rugby League Fan in England!"
I thanked him and went on my Merry way!
RIVERCAVE DWELLER OF THE YEAR 2015!
"The club used you last night and didn't tell the truth."
Post subject: Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2024 3:33 pm
Geese
Junior Player
Joined: Dec 12 2023 Posts: 19
Jukesays wrote:Comparing apples and oranges and being too simplistic
Cooper cannot stand upright amd make direct contact with attackers head, he had to get his head to the side or lower to avoid direct contact Whilst it may not be intentional as such its poor technique and exactly what the rule was brought in for, to avoid direct head contacts which i believe are the worst type in terms of damage done
Comparison to Nu brown is ridiculous, the attackers head moved, deviated from its original trajectory because of an Iinitial.contact by another player and contacted his head secondary, the pure definition of accidental as he didn't put his head in the direct path of the attackers head
You don't understand the point I'm making. I'm not debating the mechanics of each individual tackle, my point is that punishing players for accidental head-collisions is ridiculous in a full-contact sport.
Post subject: Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2024 3:43 pm
CM Punk
Player Coach
Joined: Sep 03 2005 Posts: 7646 Location: The Midlands
Jukesays wrote:Comparing apples and oranges and being too simplistic
Cooper cannot stand upright amd make direct contact with attackers head, he had to get his head to the side or lower to avoid direct contact Whilst it may not be intentional as such its poor technique and exactly what the rule was brought in for, to avoid direct head contacts which i believe are the worst type in terms of damage done
Comparison to Nu brown is ridiculous, the attackers head moved, deviated from its original trajectory because of an Iinitial.contact by another player and contacted his head secondary, the pure definition of accidental as he didn't put his head in the direct path of the attackers head
IMO it was more like the James Bentley challenge from last year where he'd have seen a card if he hadn't knocked himself out.
Post subject: Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2024 4:18 pm
CobraCraig
Player Coach
Joined: Jan 23 2007 Posts: 2152
The Reaper wrote:Fair play to Peet for just giving the next kid a go. Wellens would swap around our entire team before giving a kid a go in a game like this
Don’t think there is really any other option, I really can’t think of anyone who could play hooker. If we still had Shorrock in the squad then a decision is to be made. It’s a great time for a player to come into the side though, we are successful and playing well and most around will be experienced first teamers, it will be an unexpected call but it’s not in an injury crisis like happens a lot.
Post subject: Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2024 4:53 pm
Jukesays
Club Owner
Joined: Mar 30 2004 Posts: 7779 Location: Sorting my Erection out & Helping Conroy With his!
Geese wrote:You don't understand the point I'm making. I'm not debating the mechanics of each individual tackle, my point is that punishing players for accidental head-collisions is ridiculous in a full-contact sport.
Oh I absolutely do understand your point, I just think (and if I'm honest know) your wrong It's like closing your eyes, swinging your arms and then saying oh I didnt mean knock his head off. Yes he didn't mean it, but he did things that risk injuring the other players with bad technique
Rightly or wrongly the rules are now head to head contact must be avoided so its incumbent on the tackler to keep his head away from the ball carrier, and if you go head on face to face upright with your head in the path if the attacker you risk getting pulled/penalised/fined/banned for it
If Coopers head had caught his head in a way that concussed/injured the ball carrier then he'd have seen red imo (or at least banned on review) and under the current rules it would be fair, the fact it was the other way round is incidental and doesnt matter cooper was the one injured.
Fans Forum 28.08.08 Fan from Haydock
"I've got one word for you Mr Chairman - Penalty Count"
[quote="The Daddy"]I've got one word for you all......Steve Hanley[/quote]
Some Salford fan said to me and I quote "You are by far and away the most Handsome & Knowledgeable Rugby League Fan in England!"
I thanked him and went on my Merry way!
RIVERCAVE DWELLER OF THE YEAR 2015!
"The club used you last night and didn't tell the truth."
Post subject: Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2024 5:24 pm
Geese
Junior Player
Joined: Dec 12 2023 Posts: 19
Jukesays wrote:Oh I absolutely do understand your point, I just think (and if I'm honest know) your wrong It's like closing your eyes, swinging your arms and then saying oh I didnt mean knock his head off. Yes he didn't mean it, but he did things that risk injuring the other players with bad technique
Rightly or wrongly the rules are now head to head contact must be avoided so its incumbent on the tackler to keep his head away from the ball carrier, and if you go head on face to face upright with your head in the path if the attacker you risk getting pulled/penalised/fined/banned for it
If Coopers head had caught his head in a way that concussed/injured the ball carrier then he'd have seen red imo (or at least banned on review) and under the current rules it would be fair, the fact it was the other way round is incidental and doesnt matter cooper was the one injured.
Respectfully, I think you're the one comparing apples and oranges now I know you've not done so maliciously, but you're making a strawman argument right now.
A careless and reckless tackle should be punished, absolutely. However, most genuine accidental head clashes should not be penalised as both the runner and tackler have a responsibility to ensure their heads don't whack into each other. Mulhern is running hard and Cooper is sliding to close the gap, it's unfortunate but a few miscalculations cause a headclash. It happens. I also don't dispute the ruling, but the new rules are just awful and I don't know any rugby fan that does like them.
I don't believe we'll come to an agreement on this so we'll just agree to disagree.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum