Sheffield 1998

I don’t think there’s a right or wrong way. We definitely sit on the side of trying to just soak up any calls that might feel harsh, in terms of not calling it out in the press too much and we haven’t gone down that route of continuous appeals but it’s not doing us any favours looking at this season. Saints do it differently to us, it’s not a criticism, it’s just a fact and maybe it’s working and that’s fine.

Ultimately it isn’t about Wigan and Saints. I have said I won’t moan about none bans and I don’t but I’ll grumble about the length of bans and you can’t help compare incidents. Moylan getting none and Keighran 3 makes no sense, Hiku getting zero and Dupree 3 the same and so on. Good on the lads who’ve got off but what are they looking at?! It isn’t corrupt, it’s just incompetent and it always looks like things are being made up as they go along based on reaction to incidents, both by players on the end of them and by pundits. I really detest what the current set up is breeding and that’s play acting and faux outrage from fans/pundits and screams for punishment. It’s rapidly turning in to premier league football and the game should be embarrassed.

Just to play devils advocate here though and I'm genuinely not looking for an argument but aren't previous charges taken into account like they do with the NRL? Both Dupree and Keighran do have "form"

Also you were on the other side of the coin when Smith got off for the WCC when others were banned for very similar.

I just hope he picks Eckersley and doesn’t shoe horn a second rower into the centres

For me, and I do have cherry and white specs, but I don’t generally use them, the AK tackle wasn’t as bad as I think everyone is making out, especially when you look at generally how you would go into a tackle.
Firstly, players will turn their shoulder into an oncoming player it is a natural action based on making a tackle, anyone who has played the game will tell you this, if you don’t turn into the oncoming player you will no doubt make contact with the player full front on and either get bowled over or at the very least have your upper body spun around on impact.
Secondly the wrapping of the arms, you only start to wrap your arms once your shoulder makes the contact, any earlier and you are going to get your arm bumped off and more than likely not make an effective tackle, so to say he didn’t attempt to wrap his arms is wrong in my opinion, he never got the opportunity to wrap an arm as the player dropped the last second, if he had of followed through with the arm he would have caught him further around the head.
Now I would say the same for any player from any team in this situation, these incidents happen in milliseconds not even seconds, to adjust your gate and body in that time is very difficult, these kinds of incidents will occur what we should be doing is using the fact that all games are televised and technology to measure just how quick a players height adjusts and how quick a defending player can adjust to see if there was anything he could have done to avoid the incident

I've no idea what the MRP are smoking this week. How those guys have 3 game bans and yet Sims and Maria weren't even cited for a high shoulder charge and high swinging arm respectively is crazy to me. Its just a complete lottery. They just need to abolish them completely I think, or sack everyone and bring in a completely new team.

I could see Dupree getting a game because it's a grubby bit of play that we don't want to see, but 3 games is madness. He's hardly at risk of giving him a concussion, there was a complete lack of force applied.

Well the thing is they are trying to get players to drop their tackle height, so that there's much less margin for error and it's less likely to hit the head even if they fall. It's no good saying there's nothing he can do, because there absolutely is. He can tackle lower in the first instance. It makes sense as a goal from the RFL, the problem is the MRP is a complete liability and a lottery and isn't working. I understand they're trying to "deter" players from tackling high, but the system of handing out big bans is just stupid. Players aren't doing it on purpose, so deterrence isn't what's needed. You make it against the rules and punishable by a penalty/yellow card/red card on the day and players will stop doing it, but it's going to take time for them to adjust to not do something they've been trained to do for 10 years. The retrospective bans aren't needed at all, they're just ruining the game

Whilst I understand your points, this wasn't a high tackle. Tackle height in this instance isn't a factor. The Wire player falls into Keighran's shoulder and is very low when contact is made. In fact if you look where his hands are at the moment of impact they would be around the waist of a player who wasn't falling.

I'm not saying that this wasn't a ban in the current system but I think it's equally fair to hold the opinion that there was little that Keighran could legitimately do to stop this happening. Put it this way; I'd say that the vast majority of front on tackles would have the defending player with a similar body position to Keighran's. The only difference being that usually the attacking player isn't falling as quickly as in this example.

The disciplinary is the problem here. An almost identical tackle by Moylan on Field recently had the falling as mitigation and no ban was given. Fast forward a few weeks and the falling is no longer mitigation. In addition how many times recently have you heard the on field ref explain a yellow by saying it would have been a red as it was forceful and direct contact to the head but the fact that the player was falling means that it's a yellow. Then the same factors at play in this instance is a direct red and a 3 game ban including a final! There's just no consistency.

I thought you were better than that but it is good that you have recognised Wigan as the best. You have listed two achievements that only the very best ascend too.

It’s unfortunate that we will be short of two of our starting 17 but I don’t have any concerns. We have plenty of cover in the forwards and either Walters or Eckersley can take Keighran’s place. The only issue I have though now is the goalkicking. I think this will be a close game and every point will be vital.

Walters could provide that sort of impact.

He’s due a big game, he has been quiet the last few weeks.

To be honest I want Drinkwater playing my worry was that Ratchford would be promoted and he is a far better player and goal kicker. Although I would add that Drinkwater is a better tactical kicker. Hopefully, Jnr and Sam will give him nightmares on Saturday.

I agree with most of that all that I would add is that there is a whole world of difference between hitting a player high when he is stood upright compared to when he is falling.

Regarding the final, we all know that the rules are going to be applied far more sparingly.

Where is there any mention of cheating?

At centre? Hes got the turning circle of the QEII at the moment. Far more likely be Eckersley or maybe even Farrell

Think he meant replacing Dupree

One thing I'd be really angry about is if we let ourselves down again disciplinary wise on Saturday. If we look at both of the competitions we haven't won under Peet, our defeats both came off the back of red cards (one to Shorrocks and one to Bateman). There have also been some others in key games - Ellis x 2, Singleton, Byrne etc.

We all remember what happened in 2014 when the title was there for the taking and we self destruct. If we lose on Saturday let it be because Warrington are the better rugby team, not because we couldn't control our aggression.

I did mate, sorry for any confusion.

This all day for me. I don't want to see tinkering with the team that pulls multiple players out of position ie Farrell to left centre so Wardle goes to right centre, then if we get an injury to Walters or Nsemba we have to rejig the team again. Eckersley is next man up, the lad has loads of ability, get him in and get on with it.

I understand what they are trying to do but it is not always possible to get it right all the time in split second decision making.

For example, say two players who are both 6ft, defender bends his knees, arches his back and turns into an attacker and therefore say drops his tackle height by 2 foot, if the attacker remains straight the defender will make shoulder contact around the waist, if the attacker suddenly falls to his knees as he is brought down from behind also, he drops his height rapidly by 2 foot and therefore the defenders shoulder is around the head of the attacker.

The defender dramatically lowered his tackle height yet makes contact to the head, how can the defender alter his tackle anymore other than aiming for the knees of the attacker or even readjust in a split second to make contact below the head, it is almost impossible.

Now I am not saying AK had adjusted his height to that degree but he obviously adjusted his height as you can see where his shoulder was, he hit the head of a player almost on his knees so his shoulder had dropped, I am saying that we should have enough technology and video evidence available to 'measure' these adjustments and timing of height changes etc. to see if the player could have made any reasonable adjustments before making contact.

As for the term 'forceful contact' im sorry but if you are going to make a tackle on someone running at you full speed who is potentially 14 stone of pure muscle, if you are not going in hard to counter the attacking player then you are a danger to yourself.

'Forceful impact' is a really misleading criteria without taking it into context. A swinging arm with forceful impact is very different from a forceful impact of a planned tackle where the point of contact has suddenly changed from the intended point -as is the case in a player quickly losing height.

The defender is always planning to use a forceful impact in the tackle, that can't change in time he has, if any to make adjustments.

I agree with the above poster it should possible to use technology to assess how much reaction time is available for the defender to make an attempt to change the point and/or force of contact.

I agree, and this is why I can't stand the MRP as a concept. Like I said, players aren't doing this on purpose so handing out retrospective bans is both pointless and just effects the integrity of the league far too much. Just punish them on the day for getting it wrong and get on with it. If the referee misses it on the day then it's unfortunate but that's sport.

That said they do seem to be handing out far, far less bans over the last couple of months than at any point over the last 3 odd years which is an improvement, but again these 3 match bans are just stupid.

To me, the MRP should only be there for serious acts of foul play that are missed by the ref on the day, or are spotted by the ref but are so serious they require further action. You'd think you could use common sense to see which incidents this refers to. As for the rest, make use of the yellow card. It's a pretty big punishment without completely ruining games like red cards and suspensions and make like football and give out a suspension when you accumulate too many. Obviously you'd still need to give a red for bad ones, but they're used far too liberally now. Go on twitter during/after any single game this year and you've got people saying so and so should have been sent off. Every game. How we got here as a sport I don't know, but it's not good

We aren't helping as fans. It's become a feeding frenzy after every single game of fans baying for other team's players to be banned. It's absolutely ridiculous! In answer to your question of how we got here it's because the disciplinary is having too much influence on the season. Here we are in cup final week once again talking about bans and no bans. Same prior to the WCC and no doubt it'll be the same prior to the Grand Final.

MRP missed Drinkwaters high shot and O'Neill gets fined £250 for a push and Musgrave same offence nothing.