Re: Clubb : Tue May 03, 2016 7:22 pm  

PurpleCheeseWarrior wrote:

Have you actually watched the tackle again since the game? I have several times and the only part of Clubb's anatomy that comes into contact with Lineham's head, is his head.

So are we really punishing big tackles and accidental head clashes now?

Yes I have actually watched the tackle again since the game.

It was not a clash of heads it was a should making direct contact to the face.

I was a little annoyed it wasn't a penalty on the night, although the the ref had a poor game in general.

I don't have a mega issue with the tackle but it could have been a yellow.

1 match is about right Imo. At the end of the day wire missed a big powerful player for nearly 70 minutes because of this and Wigan weren't hindered by an act of foul play by one of their players. Not even territorially for one set.

For those referencing the shenton tackle as similar are deluded. That was a clear case of a bad injury influencing the RFL.

This is a case of the match review panel picking up what the refs and commentators ( and apparently you on multiple replays) missed.

At the end of the day you won't be hindered at all. He will miss the cup against lower league opposition. Hardly a drama is it.

Re: Clubb : Tue May 03, 2016 8:50 pm  

upsetzombie wrote:

Yes I have actually watched the tackle again since the game.

It was not a clash of heads it was a should making direct contact to the face.

I was a little annoyed it wasn't a penalty on the night, although the the ref had a poor game in general.

I don't have a mega issue with the tackle but it could have been a yellow.

1 match is about right Imo. At the end of the day wire missed a big powerful player for nearly 70 minutes because of this and Wigan weren't hindered by an act of foul play by one of their players. Not even territorially for one set.

For those referencing the shenton tackle as similar are deluded. That was a clear case of a bad injury influencing the RFL.

This is a case of the match review panel picking up what the refs and commentators ( and apparently you on multiple replays) missed.

At the end of the day you won't be hindered at all. He will miss the cup against lower league opposition. Hardly a drama is it.

I'm amazed someone could think that tackle deserves a yellow card and/or a ban. If it genuinely upset you then I'd suggest watching something more gentle like Crufts or Cash in the Attic. And wether or not Clubb's ban will hinder us is completely irrelevant, he should not have been banned full stop.

For comparison, Warrington player Ben Westwood's cowardly assault on Blake Green a few years ago resulted in a one match ban. Now tell me, was what Clubb did as severe as what Quasimodo did?

Re: Clubb : Tue May 03, 2016 9:02 pm  

PurpleCheeseWarrior wrote:

I've not seen the angle you're referring to, but even so, is it really a bannable offence? I'm quite worried about the direction the game is going in if we're punishing tackles like that.

Why plead guilty then ?.

Re: Clubb : Tue May 03, 2016 9:05 pm  

stillinthepast wrote:

Why plead guilty then ?.

To avoid a longer ban I presume.

Re: Clubb : Tue May 03, 2016 10:23 pm  

PurpleCheeseWarrior wrote:

To avoid a longer ban I presume.

Is there an extra tariff if someone contests the charge and they fail?
I must admit on the night I thought it legal but hadnt got the stomach to watch the game again so I deleted the match as soon as I got home so I cannot comment on replays of the incident

Re: Clubb : Tue May 03, 2016 10:26 pm  

stillinthepast wrote:

Why plead guilty then ?.

That's called playing the system. It is very rare for a player to be charged and not get found guilty. Whether you agree with the charge or not the sensible option given the next game was to take the 1 match.

The incident was replayed a number of times on TV and none of those showed any foul play. Someone has claimed a camera angle that showed otherwise, I'm sorry but I don't buy that, if there is another camera angle why did sky not use it.

Re: Clubb : Wed May 04, 2016 5:46 am  

Wigan fans in defending the indefensible shocker. Replays are as clear as day that the contact is shoulder to head. The clearest angle is from the back of Clubb and shows it as clear as day.

Ban much deserved - I doubt it helped his case the verbals he seemed to give Lineham on the floor.

Re: Clubb : Wed May 04, 2016 6:33 am  

jj86 wrote:

Wigan fans in defending the indefensible shocker. Replays are as clear as day that the contact is shoulder to head. The clearest angle is from the back of Clubb and shows it as clear as day.

Ban much deserved - I doubt it helped his case the verbals he seemed to give Lineham on the floor.

If direct contact to the head was as 'clear as day' why was it not seen by Eddie, Stevo, Clarke, Barry Mac, Carney & Wells. Why was is not seen by the Sky producers whilst showing numerous replays and why was it not seen by thousands of unblinkered fans who post on these boards and love a bit of faux outrage whenever a Wigan player commits an offence. Clear as day my ****

Re: Clubb : Wed May 04, 2016 7:45 am  

Itchy Arsenal wrote:

Is there an extra tariff if someone contests the charge and they fail?
I must admit on the night I thought it legal but hadnt got the stomach to watch the game again so I deleted the match as soon as I got home so I cannot comment on replays of the incident

I'm not sure, but he was charged with grade B, which carries a ban of 1-2 matches. So him submitting an early guilty plea avoids a possible extra game ban.

The full match is on YouTube, the tackle is around the 19 minute mark.

Re: Clubb : Wed May 04, 2016 7:47 am  

Strange, isn't it? He gets charged with shoulder contact to the head but if the incident had been a head clash he wouldn't have been charged.