Saddened! wrote:Knowles didn't concede a penalty for the McGilveray tackle. It was looked at and they decided there was nothing wrong with it. There wasn't. His tweet yesterday was bizarre and he should be fined for it. 'These tackles'? What do that mean? In the McGilveray one, he was overpowered by three Saints players, his upper body was turned back (As defending teams are taught to do, in order to maximise the time the ptb takes) and taken to ground. Knowles did not leave the floor at all or fall onto the legs of the player. He just got his leg caught trying to oppose the tacklers and make more progress. It was not a similar tackle to the one in the Wigan game and it was not a 'hip drop'.
The hysteria around the tackle in the Wigan game is bizarre. People have just seen the injury and decided it's got to be a bad tackle. In all seriousness, you cannot see Knowles doing anything illegal on the angles available on Twitter. On the main angle, you cannot even see him at all as he's hidden by Lussick. In this tackle he wrestles Cooper in an attempt to bring him down and there is a collision of four bodies and Knowles' knee hits Cooper's calf as he plants his foot on the floor in an attempt to fend off Lussick. It's just bad luck, there isn't a bad tackle there. He doesn't jump off the floor, he doesn't collapse his own body weight into the legs, in fact he's still on both feet after the injury, although he has lost his footing. But everyone has just jumped all over it hysterically because of the successful appeal, it's just ripped the scab off those wounds and the hysteria yesterday was because of that. If Cooper plays the ball, no one even mentions the tackle. There are Wigan fans bemused by it on Twitter and here, saying there's absolutely nothing in it. There are Warrington fans who don't see it as a bad challenge, former referees saying they can't see anything incriminating that Knowles has done. It's definitely the injury and the embarassment of the appeal last year that causes the severity of the ban, not the challenge itself.
The whole thing comes from the obsession Rugby League as a sport has with wrestling and getting the players down on their back. That is what Knowles is doing and that is what players are taught to do at all levels. Your scholars will be spending hours in the gym learning to rotate and spin players onto their backs. This is where the danger comes in, when you have three or four 18 stone men trying to pin a guy onto his back and the guy trying to oppose that and get down on his front, players are going to get hurt occasionally, it's sport. There is absolutely no intent from Knowles to injure Cooper and the suggestion he's a grub and does it deliberately is pathetic. He has zero previous charges for that kind of tackle, neither do Saints as a club, so the suggestion it's a club issue is also way off the mark. There were three other tackles of the same kind as what Knowles is alleged to have done this weekend, all far more blatant in terms of the deliberateness of the weight on the legs. No mention of those, no kangaroo court for those, no trial by social media for those players, because they were fortunate there was no serious injury.
Saddened! wrote:Knowles didn't concede a penalty for the McGilveray tackle. It was looked at and they decided there was nothing wrong with it. There wasn't. His tweet yesterday was bizarre and he should be fined for it. 'These tackles'? What do that mean? In the McGilveray one, he was overpowered by three Saints players, his upper body was turned back (As defending teams are taught to do, in order to maximise the time the ptb takes) and taken to ground. Knowles did not leave the floor at all or fall onto the legs of the player. He just got his leg caught trying to oppose the tacklers and make more progress. It was not a similar tackle to the one in the Wigan game and it was not a 'hip drop'.
The hysteria around the tackle in the Wigan game is bizarre. People have just seen the injury and decided it's got to be a bad tackle. In all seriousness, you cannot see Knowles doing anything illegal on the angles available on Twitter. On the main angle, you cannot even see him at all as he's hidden by Lussick. In this tackle he wrestles Cooper in an attempt to bring him down and there is a collision of four bodies and Knowles' knee hits Cooper's calf as he plants his foot on the floor in an attempt to fend off Lussick. It's just bad luck, there isn't a bad tackle there. He doesn't jump off the floor, he doesn't collapse his own body weight into the legs, in fact he's still on both feet after the injury, although he has lost his footing. But everyone has just jumped all over it hysterically because of the successful appeal, it's just ripped the scab off those wounds and the hysteria yesterday was because of that. If Cooper plays the ball, no one even mentions the tackle. There are Wigan fans bemused by it on Twitter and here, saying there's absolutely nothing in it. There are Warrington fans who don't see it as a bad challenge, former referees saying they can't see anything incriminating that Knowles has done. It's definitely the injury and the embarassment of the appeal last year that causes the severity of the ban, not the challenge itself.
The whole thing comes from the obsession Rugby League as a sport has with wrestling and getting the players down on their back. That is what Knowles is doing and that is what players are taught to do at all levels. Your scholars will be spending hours in the gym learning to rotate and spin players onto their backs. This is where the danger comes in, when you have three or four 18 stone men trying to pin a guy onto his back and the guy trying to oppose that and get down on his front, players are going to get hurt occasionally, it's sport. There is absolutely no intent from Knowles to injure Cooper and the suggestion he's a grub and does it deliberately is pathetic. He has zero previous charges for that kind of tackle, neither do Saints as a club, so the suggestion it's a club issue is also way off the mark. There were three other tackles of the same kind as what Knowles is alleged to have done this weekend, all far more blatant in terms of the deliberateness of the weight on the legs. No mention of those, no kangaroo court for those, no trial by social media for those players, because they were fortunate there was no serious injury.
actually this bit caught my eye, as i was closing the window, so lets address this bit.
you know who you sound EXACTLY like in this phrase, this post and all the other posts that your posting, ranting about this,
the wigan fans who refused to accept there was an issue under maguire, and under wane with the cannonball tackles, attacking the knee joint of standing men.
i wonder what your opinion of them at that time was?
Saddened! wrote:Knowles didn't concede a penalty for the McGilveray tackle. It was looked at and they decided there was nothing wrong with it. There wasn't. His tweet yesterday was bizarre and he should be fined for it. 'These tackles'? What do that mean? In the McGilveray one, he was overpowered by three Saints players, his upper body was turned back (As defending teams are taught to do, in order to maximise the time the ptb takes) and taken to ground. Knowles did not leave the floor at all or fall onto the legs of the player. He just got his leg caught trying to oppose the tacklers and make more progress. It was not a similar tackle to the one in the Wigan game and it was not a 'hip drop'.
The hysteria around the tackle in the Wigan game is bizarre. People have just seen the injury and decided it's got to be a bad tackle. In all seriousness, you cannot see Knowles doing anything illegal on the angles available on Twitter. On the main angle, you cannot even see him at all as he's hidden by Lussick. In this tackle he wrestles Cooper in an attempt to bring him down and there is a collision of four bodies and Knowles' knee hits Cooper's calf as he plants his foot on the floor in an attempt to fend off Lussick. It's just bad luck, there isn't a bad tackle there. He doesn't jump off the floor, he doesn't collapse his own body weight into the legs, in fact he's still on both feet after the injury, although he has lost his footing. But everyone has just jumped all over it hysterically because of the successful appeal, it's just ripped the scab off those wounds and the hysteria yesterday was because of that. If Cooper plays the ball, no one even mentions the tackle. There are Wigan fans bemused by it on Twitter and here, saying there's absolutely nothing in it. There are Warrington fans who don't see it as a bad challenge, former referees saying they can't see anything incriminating that Knowles has done. It's definitely the injury and the embarassment of the appeal last year that causes the severity of the ban, not the challenge itself.
The whole thing comes from the obsession Rugby League as a sport has with wrestling and getting the players down on their back. That is what Knowles is doing and that is what players are taught to do at all levels. Your scholars will be spending hours in the gym learning to rotate and spin players onto their backs. This is where the danger comes in, when you have three or four 18 stone men trying to pin a guy onto his back and the guy trying to oppose that and get down on his front, players are going to get hurt occasionally, it's sport. There is absolutely no intent from Knowles to injure Cooper and the suggestion he's a grub and does it deliberately is pathetic. He has zero previous charges for that kind of tackle, neither do Saints as a club, so the suggestion it's a club issue is also way off the mark. There were three other tackles of the same kind as what Knowles is alleged to have done this weekend, all far more blatant in terms of the deliberateness of the weight on the legs. No mention of those, no kangaroo court for those, no trial by social media for those players, because they were fortunate there was no serious injury.
I stopped reading after the first paragraph. I only read fiction when in bed.
Packs Win Games Great Packs Make All Backs Look Class #onceawirealwaysawire
Joined: Jul 17 2015 Posts: 4635 Location: Sitting on the naughty step
Is it possible Saddened has been hacked by one of the Warringtonwolves69 aliases? Whoever it is has now gone full on bat poo conspiracy crazy. Imagine the fuss if they had a player banned for 7 for something he said. They as a team relied on being very quick out of the defensive line (charitable view) and , holding down in the tackle as 2 of their major tactics. They haven’t been able to do that so far this season and some of their players are looking past their sell by date, eg Percival, LMS and dare I say Roby. They may well come good later in the season but they can not deal with losing.
Just my opinions unless it's a FACT, in which case it's a fact.
Joined: Aug 09 2018 Posts: 470 Location: Gave up years ago
Jon Wilkin said during one sky game recently that it isn't intent that injures opposition players it's poor technique. If any player displays that it's Knowles. I can't remember other players finger pointing publically on this before but it does prove that unless he improves his game in that area he will find his future visits to the MRP producing longer and longer bans. Its up to him but its dreadful that any player faces long term injury because Knowles doesn't follow advice and learn from his previous experiences.
Joined: Apr 14 2005 Posts: 1746 Location: Great Sankey, Warrington.
If saddened thinks McGilveray should be fined for having a 'bizarre' opinion on his and other player's safety and wellbeing, how did he feel about creepy Eamonn having an opinion on challenge cup final refereeing? Surely he should've been fined too.
Jack Napier wrote:The amount of effort you've put into defending Knowles across various forums and social media platforms is genuinely hilarious.
It does seem like a criminal waste of his Easter holidays. In my day we would have been sent outside by our mums after breakfast and not allowed back in until dark.
Saddened! wrote:Knowles didn't concede a penalty for the McGilveray tackle.
Saints players injures opponent for 6 months and not even a penalty. Let that sink in, theres more evidence of past preferential treatment that you have enjoyed. Now, quite rightly a ban has been applied, the cannonball has been outlawed and the dropped hip needs to go as well.
That dissertation will be down graded, as incredibly, it omits any blame to be laid at the referee's door, who is clearly at fault for failing to shout held, in a far more timely manner.
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
