If it becomes the third ban of two games to get turned over (after Naiqama and Sarginson) in the space of around 4-6 weeks, then surely serious questions need to be asked about this shambles of a disciplinary process (or the people implementing it more to the point).

To change the format this weekend would be utterly farcical and once again make a complete mockery out of the game

Yep

Fully agree. We’ve gone with what we’ve gone with after Covid and that didn’t please everyone but it was a decisive decision and they set out what was needed to make the play offs. There are dead rubbers every year pretty much and we’ve done enough manufacturing now IMO. I think it really risks turning people off if we change it again. You only need to look at Cas and Salford last night to see that the teams without a chance of making the play offs have integrity.

It says it all when you see the clubs who are alleged to be backing it. Clubs looking to solidify their place in the play offs. It’s scandalous really when all (or most) clubs agreed to the current format all those moons ago. The clubs who haven’t a shot at making the play offs are playing each week to upset those in the play offs. They may not get there but they can help dictate who does.

Downgraded to grade B, now a one match ban instead of two but also fined £500.

Makes complete and utter sense



Crusher, Smithies 4 games, walmsley 1
Flower 2 games, numerous other tackles including 2 that were on TV the week after, caused injuries/delays in game and reviewed by the panel 0 games
Let's not even mention the wells incident, crusher, chicken wing and cannonball tackle all in one, Nothing.

Complete clarity

Sound like Daryl Powell

No Lockers or Manfredi according to Lam, same team as last week probably

If we beat stains they could always ask for the Salford game to be replayed so that they can give back to Sts what has been so wrongly taken away from them. Perhaps they should be given a few other interchanges to make up for Walmsley being treated so unfairly.

I’ve given up on the disciplinary, it’s an absolute and utter farce.

Incidents get judged on 3 factors and 3 factors only and not on the merits of the incident itself. They are-

1-what previous the player has

2-what fuss is kicked up by the fouled player, his coach and the Sky commentary team.

3-Who you play for.

That might sound jaundiced, but it is how it looks. The disciplinary is certainly a shambles. Punishments getting drastically overturned should be the rare exception, not the rule. By definition, the system isn't working.

I posted the video of the Flower tackle on the Canberra fans website, and one of the guys there said, yeah, that's the leg-drop (?something, drop, anyway) tackle that the NRL are trying to get rid of. Nevertheless, I find it hard to get too excited about a tackle where the tackled player makes no complaint, doesn't appear to suffer any injury, and play continues. Considering some of the tackles you do see that go unpunished...

oh it was that one, i saw that at the time and said thats almost exactly the same as the smithies incident, and should cop the same ban.

I thought Smithies was Harsh, as player himself puts his own head in a dangerous position - 2 matches would have been about right for me.
I agree similar happened with the Walmesley one - Player dips his head (It's becoming a common tactic, a bit like backing into the tackle) but after that I don't see much difference in Smithies and Walmesleys actions.
To get grading reduced etc. Baffling

And that's the issue, the inconsistency of it all.

I don't think there's many people on here who can hand on heart say they believe Walmsley action's deserve a ban at all on the face of it. But when Smithies gets 4 games and Walmsley gets 2, later reduced to 1, it's bound to get a reaction.

Exactly

more concerned with flowers 2 and his 0 than the crusher

Again, there was nothing wrong with Walmsley’s tackle on Wells. The backlash was because Flower had recently been done and also because of the injury. And the fact Walmsley plays for Saints. Take away those factors and the Walmsley tackle would never have even been noticed or got a mention.

So takeaway all the facts of the situation and nobody bats an eyelid.

Not all the facts no. You’re yet again twisting my words which is your usual tactic.

The main “fact” is what Walmsley actually did. The other stuff (the injury and the Flower ban) don’t actually make his tackle any worse but have a massive impact on the reaction to it.

Answer this honestly, had Wells not gone down injured and the game hadn’t been stopped would any single Wigan fan have been calling for him to be banned after the game? Be honest.

I personally was calling for Graham to be banned for the crusher and whoever it was that tried to rip his arm out.

If you're asking would I be asking for a ban for a tackle from the third man in that targets the knee then the answer would be yes because they're the rules.

That’s not what I am asking though is it. (Walmsley didn’t target the knee by the way)

I’ll ask again, had Wells not been injured and the game didn’t stop would anyone have even mentioned the Walmsley tackle?

You keep reiterating that there was nothing wrong with the Walmesley tackle last week - There was, it was a crusher
End of

Did it deserve a Ban? Yes
Do I think the 2 would have been fair yes, would I have accepted 1? Maybe

But To get it downgraded to 1 is fortunate, for the RFL to in effect say that Smithies was 4 x times worse is ridiculous

Now you can argue about anything you want with regards to the severity of the punishment,
But you obviously don't think he should have got banned? Maybe not even charged etc.? Well that's just wrong

As for the Jack wells one - Ben Flowers was about 100 times less innocuous - No-one even knew there was an issue until 4 days later
I watched it about 10 x times thinking there must be a different tackle they're referring to
I made my point clear that there would be dozens similar between now and the end of the season and in the following week lo & behold 2 almost identical tackles resulting in on the field injuries and neither was charged.

Ridiculous

Then Walmesley tackles Wells, coincidentally whilst also being held in a crusher and having a chicken wing applied.
Attacker stood prone (At least the Flower one the attacker was still moving forward) and Walmesley leaves his feet and goes to Knees from I would say a 45degree angle to be generous to him (rather than from the side closer to 90 degrees that I think it was nearer, and we all get told they shouldn't tackle against the "Natural bend" of the knee) and Nothing

Ridiculous - When compared to what others including Flower were & have been banned for.

Slightly off topic - 5 games for Makinson & 8 for Lineham - How????

Anyway to answer your question

Answer this honestly, had Wells not gone down injured and the game hadn’t been stopped would any single Wigan fan have been calling for him to be banned after the game? Be honest

I just don't know - because I did call it as a bad tackle as it happened, and a crusher (I missed the chicken wing at the time), and he was injured, and the game was stopped - And He got Nothing

Ben Flower - Absolutely No-one picked up on it, the player didn't complain, the Sky commentary said nothing, the games wasn't stopped and no Fan had a clue and probably still don't and what = 2 games

so that's it
I just don't know - Because you know what, I don't think the RFL know

But don't be surprised to get a backlash from Wigan fans when Walmesely gets a downgrade to 1 after what Smithies etc. got
They should have got similar - and wheter they both get 3/4 or they both get nothing, someone needs to decide on that and stay as consistant as they can with the interpretation

Yes, but we have to take out all the facts of the tackle. Forget that he targets the knee, Wells is out for the season and the game was stopped. They are all irrelevant.

It's like saying forget that Ben Flower punched Hohaia square in the face and then smacked him again on the floor why he was out cold. Was it a red card?