And by the way, the touch judge should be stood down. You can always forgive them not seeing incidents. But seeing something that didn't happen is not good enough. He needs drug testing.
Clearwing wrote:I'd think better of Lomax if he'd admitted he wasn't punched. His silence speaks volumes about him.
I made my mind up on him when he played pretty much the whole season with an injury that needed surgery and then decided rather than continuing to do that for the World Cup he ruled himself out. Compare that to Oldezki who missed a chunk of this season to put his hand up for England.
Clearwing wrote:I'd think better of Lomax if he'd admitted he wasn't punched. His silence speaks volumes about him.
The reversal of the ban is a good decision and I think the correct outcome, but as ever it's regrettable we ended up here.
However, it does throw up another glaring problem with the process. Effectively this has set the precedent that if there isn't clear video evidence of something happening, it overrides the word of the officials. The wording today confirms they haven't proved he didn't do it, just that they can't sufficiently prove he did. Ignoring this particular incident and focusing on that, I think it's very dangerous. It calls into questioning the whole MRP process, I'm not sure why they forensically re-referee games in the first place. In which other sports do they take the game apart and look to ban as many players as possible? You could very easily ban an extra 20 Premier League players a week if they re-refereed everything that goes on, 50 if you include diving as a bannable offense. Another daft aspect of this is the need they feel to punish someone for an injury. Here, they've used proof that Lomax was bleeding before this incident as mitigation for it. Had he not been, it suggests they would have banned him for it anyway, which again is wrong. If he didn't punch him, why do they feel the need to ban him because there's blood there?
I think attacking Lomax's character is completely out of order though. There are a few on social media wishing injury or worse on Lomax. His comments were not targeted at any player and he did not ask for any cards. He's the captain and is trying to make sure the penalty goes Saints way in the heat of the game. Those wishing injury on him need to reflect, you've got the high Chief of bad character playing fullback for you. This is another example of the outcome of the MRP and their work. The entire sport is incredibly toxic. You've got Sky pundits, journalists, club owners, former referees, coaches, players and fans all bombarding social media after games, demanding bans. The talk after games isn't about Handley's great try or Walmsley's run before the drop goal, Holroyd's development or Walters' spicyness, it's about this player or that player and whether they can ban them for it.
The whole MRP process needs to be ripped up and started again. Let's start trusting the match officials to make decisions and if they are unsure on the field, they refer it to the video ref. You deal with it in game and it's not the next 2,3,4,5 teams the offender plays after it that benefit. If it's something they can't see on the field and can't pick up on the video referee and needs nine camera angles, it's not worth looking at.
Last edited by Saddened! on Tue May 30, 2023 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Saddened! wrote:The reversal of the ban is a good decision and I think the correct outcome, but as ever it's regrettable we ended up here.
However, it does throw up another glaring problem with the process. Effectively this has set the precedent that if there isn't clear video evidence of something happening, it overrides the word of the officials. The wording today confirms they haven't proved he didn't do it, just that they can't sufficiently prove he did. Ignoring this particular incident and focusing on that, I think it's very dangerous. It calls into questioning the whole MRP process, I'm not sure why they forensically re-referee games in the first place. In which other sports do they take the game apart and look to ban as many players as possible? You could very easily ban an extra 20 Premier League players a week if they re-refereed everything that goes on, 50 if you include diving as a bannable offense.
I think attacking Lomax's character is completely out of order though. There are a few on social media wishing injury or worse on Lomax. His comments were not targeted at any player and he did not ask for any cards. He's the captain and is trying to make sure the penalty goes Saints way in the heat of the game. Those wishing injury on him need to reflect, you've got the high Chief of bad character playing fullback for you. This is another example of the outcome of the MRP and their work. The entire sport is incredibly toxic. You've got Sky pundits, journalists, club owners, former referees, coaches, players and fans all bombarding social media after games, demanding bans. The talk after games isn't about Handley's great try or Walmsley's run before the drop goal, Holroyd's development or Walters' spicyness, it's about this player or that player and whether they can ban them for it.
The whole MRP process needs to be ripped up and started again. Let's start trusting the match officials to make decisions and if they are unsure on the field, they refer it to the video ref. You deal with it in game and it's not the next 2,3,4,5 teams the offender plays after it that benefit. If it's something they can't see on the field and can't pick up on the video referee and needs nine camera angles, it's not worth looking at.
Saddened! wrote:The reversal of the ban is a good decision and I think the correct outcome, but as ever it's regrettable we ended up here.
However, it does throw up another glaring problem with the process. Effectively this has set the precedent that if there isn't clear video evidence of something happening, it overrides the word of the officials. The wording today confirms they haven't proved he didn't do it, just that they can't sufficiently prove he did. Ignoring this particular incident and focusing on that, I think it's very dangerous. It calls into questioning the whole MRP process, I'm not sure why they forensically re-referee games in the first place. In which other sports do they take the game apart and look to ban as many players as possible? You could very easily ban an extra 20 Premier League players a week if they re-refereed everything that goes on, 50 if you include diving as a bannable offense.
I think attacking Lomax's character is completely out of order though. There are a few on social media wishing injury or worse on Lomax. His comments were not targeted at any player and he did not ask for any cards. He's the captain and is trying to make sure the penalty goes Saints way in the heat of the game. Those wishing injury on him need to reflect, you've got the high Chief of bad character playing fullback for you. This is another example of the outcome of the MRP and their work. The entire sport is incredibly toxic. You've got Sky pundits, journalists, club owners, former referees, coaches, players and fans all bombarding social media after games, demanding bans. The talk after games isn't about Handley's great try or Walmsley's run before the drop goal, Holroyd's development or Walters' spicyness, it's about this player or that player and whether they can ban them for it.
The whole MRP process needs to be ripped up and started again. Let's start trusting the match officials to make decisions and if they are unsure on the field, they refer it to the video ref. You deal with it in game and it's not the next 2,3,4,5 teams the offender plays after it that benefit. If it's something they can't see on the field and can't pick up on the video referee and needs nine camera angles, it's not worth looking at.
Couldn’t agree more. Rugby Union’s use of the video ref is where I think we should be at. Running things in the background whilst play continues. Try’s being awarded by the referee if the ball has been seen to be grounded. Referee leading the TMO review process where needed.
Saddened! wrote:I think attacking Lomax's character is completely out of order though. There are a few on social media wishing injury or worse on Lomax. His comments were not targeted at any player and he did not ask for any cards. He's the captain and is trying to make sure the penalty goes Saints way in the heat of the game. Those wishing injury on him need to reflect, you've got the high Chief of bad character playing fullback for you.
It's his silence subsequent to the match I have the problem with, not during. Heat of the game I get. Regardless, I certainly wouldn't wish injury upon him.
"Look, I'd never use injuries as an excuse..." Daryl Powell
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
