Another arm chair following feckw!t. Stroll on Chuckles.

If McGuire has a bad injury as a result of his unbelievable cheating, then whilst i don't wish injury on anybody, nevertheless as a statement of pure fact, at least there will be some consequence to Leeds for his cheating, to set off qualifying for the semi by cheating. McGuire should be banned from at least the next match anyway if there was even a bit of justice, for bringing the game into disrepute.

Just for the relevance of highlighting something here. Of all the decisions for holding back this year (and there have been many) did you hold the same view that they should have also been banned?

I suspect you didn't, and if that is the case then you need to jog on with the rest of the idiots from Wigan. You have just gone from a highly respected poster to a numbnut in one post.

That's poor form on your part. Again, you had credence as a poster, but that blows that out of the water.

Disrepute? For what? Committing a foul? Which incidentally and technically wasn't one since it wasn't penalised, but no matter. We concede penalties as much as the next side but I wouldn't play paragon of virtue and demand Langley is banned as a result of his high penalty count, intended or otherwise. Similarly for punch ups which have a more logical intention.

Take out the Leeds factor and the man in question and your view may have been less spurious.

Again, poor form. The fall out of knee-jerk feckw!tted reactions to this game is incredible. The fact is, it was a great game irrespective of the ludicrously jaundiced views that are being banged out on keyboards across the north.

There were far worse offenses in that game than McGuire's, and it was in no way deserving of a ban.
I expected better from you, and almost as classless as this fekkwit from the VT:



Sour grapes indeed.

Oh, what did I miss. Did McGuire kill someone with his bare hands and get away with it again?

But Tomkins gets away with that little "play" all the time. It is time that the refs started doing something about it. He did it against us didn't he, with Worrincy of course to blame.

What he said.

I don't think FA's is nearly as bad, as he's hoping the player gets a ban, rather than an injury. While I don't necessarily agree it deserves a ban, I don't think there's anything wrong with suggesting the player deserves that. It's just an opinion and doesn't wish any ill-harm on the person.

Those suggesting he deserves an injury though, and especially saying he deserves to be out for 10 months, are quite frankly, the sort of @rseholes I really don't want supporting this club or this sport. I have nothing but contempt and disgust for that sort of attitude and that sort of person.

Precisely.

Who knows if McGuires knee hyper-extended and he grabbed out in pain. Who knows if it was intentional. Who knows if the Leeds cover would have got to Carmont. Who knows what would have happened had Joel Tomkins been binned. Who knows what would have happened had Sam Tomkins not conned 3 penalties out of the referee. Pure conjecture.

Rhinos won a classic game. Simple. Had Wigan committed the same alleged act, the standpoint of many on here and the Wigan boards would be very different.

Said fans who sit in judgement with their Sky Plus replays and don't take into account the real high speed play, with fatigue involved by blokes who actually put their bodies on the line. But no, let's all judge what really happened via Eddie Hemmings.

'Kin unbelievable.

Context is all. If it had been done earlier in the match then (a) the opposition still have a chance to win and (b) the cheating player gets 10 minutes in the bin, which hands a big advantage to the opponents.

In this case (a) he has deliberately and cynically prevented any chance of what WOULD be the matchwinning try; and (b) he cannot usefully be sinbinned, as there isn't 10 minutes left.

I would be happy if, to discourage such, the ref would give a penalty try in such a blatant case. If it happened earlier then a sinbinning is at least a significant detriment but it was the cynical nature of what he deliberately did which, coupled with the critical timing, that IMHO sets it apart from most 'professional foul' cases.

In any case, what are you saying? That a player in those circumstances may as well deliberately foul every time, indeed may be expected to do so by his coach and fans, as the reward may be huge, and the risk non-existent? Is that your idea of a fair rule? My problem with it on the other side of the equation is that by denying Wigan the clear chance to win in that cynical way, McGuire seems to be doing so with impunity. A penalty in Wigan's half would be totally inadequate compensation for Wigan, and a totally inadequate "punishment" for McGuire's offence.


Well, I would have no objection to such blatant cheating being referred to the disciplinary panel in other instances (as well as this) as it is well outside the spirit of the game. It's totally different from players straying close to the line, it was the pure cynicism of it that sets it apart. I would like to see ANY player committing a foul as premeditated and cynical as that get a sinbinning as a minimum, and failing that, answer to the disciplinary. Otherwise inevitably when there is no downside, players will choose to do it every time. I would like to see the ref take, or even have, the option to award a penalty try in blatant cases or, if not blatant enough for the ref's liking, then the penalty should be awarded under the sticks.

By some sort of analogy, in soccer, a deliberate handball on the line gets you sent off and suspended. I would prefer that the ref there had the option of awarding a goal but as he doesn't, then the offender at least will pay with a ban, and the analogy breaks down a bit as the other team should score anyway from the ensuing penalty, though the option of awarding a goal would be fairer as there is still a chance that the pen will be saved and that rewards the offending team.

Anyway, you seem happy to let Leeds and McGuire profit from what McGuire (and Donald) did. In my eyes that makes you look more like a "numpty", as to me, that's not rugby league.

PS I'm not from Wigan, I'm from Bradford, and would have chosen the Yorkshire team to support against the Lancashire team, all other things being equal.

Pretty much everyone on the planet who saw it.
HTH

My point is that based on what did happen, McGuire pays no price, and his team reaps a rich reward. What is the consequence for a player doing what McGuire did? Answer: None. Do you think that is right?


Yep.

And I do understand that. Your analogy with the football and handballing on the line is a perfect one I think. The Uruguay/Ghana World Cup Quarter Final springs to mind where that foul on the line in the last minute put Uruguay through to the Semi Finals. Had he not done it, Ghana would have gone through. While you can't really blame the player for doing it (Who wouldn't accept a penalty and ban as the price for putting the team through?), it did need to be punished.

Had it been clear that Wigan would have scored from that play, and the foul had stopped that, I would agree, it needed to be punished properly. However I don't believe Carmont would have caught up anyway, so a penalty was enough for mine.

how about carry over sin bins? if you get sin binned with less than 10 minutes to go then you have to miss the remaining time on their next match? it would mean that a sin bin would take the full effect but then the whole meaning of a sin bin gets changed.

I can't see it happening but it would make the start of the next match interesting

Too many admin issues. This would be the perfect example, as if McGuire missed the next game due to injury, what happens to his sin bin? If it sticks with him, will Leeds wait until they're playing a lesser side before playing him, so that it doesn't have so much of an effect.

Would have the same problems as "on report" I think where the team the foul is committed against doesn't get the benefit.

Exactly, I'm not sure that is what FA is saying though, although there is no point in arguing with him as he will keep replying with ever longer posts until no-one can remember what the original issue was.

It wouldn't have made any difference if McGuire hadn't fouled Carmont. Neither Wigan player had the legs to go all the way and there was simply not enough time left for another play if they had been tackled further into the Leeds half.

The frustrating thing from a Leeds point of view is that if we'd played out our 6 on the previous set instead of kicking on tackle 3 there would have been no controversy and McGuire would be fit.

What does FA think about the kick from Joel Tomkins from his 'Yorkshire' viewpoint, or the repeated penalties won by his brother by conning the ref? Don't say it would have been above board if this had happened against Bradford! This far outweighs what McGuire did.

Take for example that Carmont WOULD have caught up, and that particular foul had stopped Wigan scoring. It would mean that by committing a deliberate foul, McGuire had ensured Leeds won the match instead of Wigan. That's about as much a professional foul as you can get, and therefore I agree, would very much deserve further punishment than just a penalty. That's the point he's making I believe.




Incidentally, I think the Joel Tomkins thing was nothing. He was reacting to being elbowed in the tackle by McGuire, and barely did anything. Had he kicked him flush in the head, fair enough, but he didn't. He flicked his leg out and barely touched him. IMO more is being made of that than needs to be too.

I won't.


So McGuire fouled for . . . for no reason at all? An interesting POV.


Stupid, but hardly a "kick" and made none or minimal contact, and had no effect on the game. I would've sinbinned him for 10. (could also place on report). I would hate it if we ended up with farcical "automatic sending off" like in where you graze someone's cheek with your hand, they writhe in agony as if shot with an elephant gun, and a red card is brandished. But it did not have any effect on the match.


If you buy into the claim that a SL player can't actually TRY to remove his arm because it is "clamped". I don't. But these were not decisive incidents in the dying minutes and for infringements in general play I reckon over 80 minutes both teams will pretty much commit or get away with a broadly similar number.

I reckon if I was reffing the game, I would be able to see if Sinfield was doing his best to extricate his arm and get away from the tackle, and was being hampered beyond his ability to cope with it. Why did Sinfield only start whingeing after the pen was given? Answer: he was extremely happy for the tackle to take as long as it took, the longer the better.


On some planets, if there is an infinite number, I suppose it even might!

I think it's even more simple.

Any player in McGuire's position would have committed the same act (whether it was actually intentional or not). If it happened in the 4 Nations and an England player carried out the same "act" on Inlgis, then I would cheer wholeheartedly. I have no interest on someones perception of that. It's sport where teams play to win no matter what. Folk need to step off the white cloud about "spirit of the game". What is actually happening is the jaundiced one-eyed club stance is taking shape. Pity, because it detracts from a super spectacle.

McGuire cheated no more than any other SL player who concedes a penalty whether through holding down, offside, head shot or otherwise. The essense remains the same, to gain unfair advantage. Whether that is the first second or the last second.

The holier than thou view of the incident is pish poor.

Yes, precisely, this can be the only reason McGuire did it, he perceived the opportunity and chose to prevent it. He should receive a penalty based on what he did, and shouldn't be allowed any "yes but what if"s in mitigation.


Yep.

I remember Wally Lewis pulling Martin Offiah back, but have never read one word of objection to that. His action had no affect on the outcome of the game, just as McGuire's didn't. A shame that McGuire's antics distract from another brilliant performance by him.

Or Mal Meninga shoving Carl Gibson out of the way at Old Trafford in last minute, thus leading to a winning try.

Absolutely not.





Couldn't disagree more.


Yes, in the same way the BrinksMat robbery is a criminal offence exactly the same as picking up a 5p you see someone drop. Everything is the same. All tries are the same, all tackles are the same, every disciplinary offence is exactly alike. If there ever was a post destroying credibility, yours would be it.

josefw wrote:Sam Tomkins really annoyed me tonight milking penalty's every time he got tacked by holding on to the players.


Clared's reply He`s a cheat and i hope from the expression that seinfield give the ref tonight i hope the RFL look in to it and stop it

Acording to Stuart Cummings at the ref night Tompkins is not a cheat it is the tacklers responibility to get his arm out not the ball carriers to let him go ineringthat thearm should not be inside to start with.