Quote ="debaser"When did we have 7 tackles? I think this is one of those made up things that someone said and now Saints fans are jumping on board as gospel.'" Instead of uploading to YouTube here is an Imageshack screencap slideshow img834.imageshack.us/slideshow/w ... =tryun.jpg: (Slide) 1: The 20 metre tap 2: 1st tackle (ref shouts "one"icon_wink.gif 3: 2nd tackle (ref shouts "two"icon_wink.gif 4: 3rd tackle (ref shouts "three move"icon_wink.gif 5: 4th tackle (ref shouts "three move"icon_wink.gif 6: 5th tackle (ref shouts "four" and Sky correctly display the red 5th tackle graphic) 7: 6th tackle (ref shouts "held release FIVE"icon_wink.gif 8: 7th tackle and the kick to Wellens is made 9: Catch by Kearney 10: Try given by James Child Link to album if Slideshow doesn't work: imageshack.us/g/834/tryun.jpg/

Quote ="debaser"When did we have 7 tackles? I think this is one of those made up things that someone said and now Saints fans are jumping on board as gospel.'" Instead of uploading to YouTube here is an Imageshack screencap slideshow img834.imageshack.us/slideshow/w ... =tryun.jpg: (Slide) 1: The 20 metre tap 2: 1st tackle (ref shouts "one"icon_wink.gif 3: 2nd tackle (ref shouts "two"icon_wink.gif 4: 3rd tackle (ref shouts "three move"icon_wink.gif 5: 4th tackle (ref shouts "three move"icon_wink.gif 6: 5th tackle (ref shouts "four" and Sky correctly display the red 5th tackle graphic) 7: 6th tackle (ref shouts "held release FIVE"icon_wink.gif 8: 7th tackle and the kick to Wellens is made 9: Catch by Kearney 10: Try given by James Child Link to album if Slideshow doesn't work: imageshack.us/g/834/tryun.jpg/

It is very rare someone who drops the ball & gets flattened gets a penalty. It's RL karma. Like a number on here, watch the highlights & then admit you were mistaken.

From Twitter:


'Kelly_TowerFM': UPDATE: RFL tell me James Child 7th tackle error will be dealt with at a review panel today #saints #bradford #rugbyleague

thats just complete nonsense. He was all het up about the decision and his comments were about that. He even went on to justify his comments by saying that Lynch had a right to turn and run in the direction of the ball, so he was clearly talking about that incident. Diskin was wrong about the incident, and wrong to say what he did. As fans we can say it and the ref was pretty poor with a multitude of errors going in the favour of both sides.

Led with the forearms right into Herbert's mush. Late, high should have got 10.

Yep, that's about spot on.

Oh ok then.

If that happened he'll get a ban and rightly so.

Amen.

only it didnt.

Wilkin hit him about a nano-second after he had kicked the ball and was commited. The hit itself was also legal.

Committed? To what? Wilkin didn't attempt to charge down the ball, didn't attempt to effect a tackle. He hit him late and led with his forearms around the shoulders and chin.

he charged the kicker and was fully commited. There was nothing wrong with what he did provided he didnt forearm him in the face, which he didnt do. It was no worse than What Hoffman did to Gary Wheeler which had all the Saints fans up in arms but when looked at in the cold
light of day ny the disciplinary panel they found nothing wrong with it. You can do that. Its only a late illegal hit if you hit the guy, after the ball has gone when you knew the ball had gone and could have pulled out of the hit. Wilkin couldnt have done that.

Don't worry. Wilkin was aiming for the ball. Everything else is irrelevant for your average impartial Bulls fan, even if he had caught him on the jaw.

Yet he missed the ball by a country mile and elbowed him in the face. So lets see....reckless tackle...2 match ban?

That isn't true though is it?
Players aren't stupid and they adapt behaviour when necessary to gain the most benefit. Consider: Players put hands in at the ptb. They do this in the hope of gaining possession by dislodging the ball and the referee giving a knock on. [iIF[/i the ref does give a knock on, this shows that the practice works and will only result in it being repeated.
Scenario 2: Player puts hand in and the ref gives a penalty. This gives the direct opposite outcome to what the transgressor was hoping for, thereby showing that the idea of putting the hand in isn't a good idea so it is less likely to be repeated.

So the likely outcome would more probably been that the penalties would have nipped the 'hands in' in the bud, rather than every set would have had a penalty.

Exactly. In the same way if you only get back 8m at the ptb and just stand ever so slightly not square and not get penalised then you keep going. You get pinged everytime, you stop.

You forgot to take off the "Saints Reduction Factor" when calculating the ban.

Standard suspension / Saints Reduction Factor = Actual ban for Saints player.

Therefore (2 / 3) = 0.666

0.666 < 1 therefore actual ban equals "less than 1 match".

Therefore ZERO.

If he got him in the mush it's >2 matches, although I'd give him 8 for being a sh it. Though it will be a joke & a disgrace & all the review panels bias. One rule for Saints, one for the rest.

so basically we have covered all of our bases because if he gets banned then you are proven correct. If he doesnt get banned then its biased.

Alternatively, in the real world if he doesnt get banned its because he has done nothing wrong a la Hoffman on Wheeler.

I think the best evidence would be a video replay that shows whether he goes high or not.

Whether the RFL does or doesn't award a ban proves nothing, and it's been like this for a very long time.

you will find that the video will be reviewed by the RFL. Your opinion of it matters not one bit which is exactly why they wont take the effort to appease every fan and show it. I made a quick note of the incident at the time and there was nothing in it at all.

I wish all threads got finished off with such overwhelming evidence.

You lot still harping on about the match. Seams your first try was off a 7th tackle. So I don't hear much about how that from you lot. Nope it's all the ref in favour of Saints, how Saints got a penalty, which was correct but still shouldn't have been given because bradford should have won.

Basically we was robbed. 2 tries chalked off, Bradford gifted their first try with an extra tackle.


It's all a conspiracy to keep the dullards in the top 8.

Jeez, you missing Keiron these days, huh?

I suppose that would be the reduction factor that has led to two Saints players being banned already this season: Scott Moore for doing something unknown to Kevin Sinfield (appeal unsuccessful) and Josh Perry for a one on one fight with a Crusaders player (appeal unsuccessful).

Obviously, one rule for Saints, another for everyone else!



Loving Jon Wilkin this season. Aside from the fact that he's bloody gorgeous looking and sexy as hell, he is having an absolute stormer for us and I wouldn't change anything in his game at all. He smacked straight into the Bradford player because he was committed to the ball. The guy was a maniac over the weekend. 40 tackles on Friday in the Exiles game and our best player by a country mile for the 73 minutes he put in on Sunday. Bloody legend.