Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:03 am  

rubber duckie wrote:

He did, and if you were along the stand in the right position to follow Mamo and still see Marshall, you would have seen Marshall thump the ground. That wasn’t picked up on camera, the camera was following play. At that point he was suddenly prone knocked out!

Yet concussion doesn’t require you to be unconscious.

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:11 am  

DannyT wrote:

Yet concussion doesn’t require you to be unconscious.

100%, but Marshall was suddenly out cold. If he’d have had concussion issues, he’d had been on his feet trying to prove there’s nothing up with him and the doctor would be telling him the opposite, don’t kid me, your concussed and you’re having a rest for a week. Rugby players try to hide injury. Marshall did the opposite. He’s let Wigan down and I’d be pretty pist if that was a Wire player that tried a stunt like that.

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:21 am  

rubber duckie wrote:

100%, but Marshall was suddenly out cold. If he’d have had concussion issues, he’d had been on his feet trying to prove there’s nothing up with him and the doctor would be telling him the opposite, don’t kid me, your concussed and you’re having a rest for a week. Rugby players try to hide injury. Marshall did the opposite. He’s let Wigan down and I’d be pretty pist if that was a Wire player that tried a stunt like that.

You’re comments fall down when you take into account that he went off and failed a HIA therefore he is having a rest for a week.

The bottom line is he got kicked (or shinned if you prefer) in the head which caused him to loose the ball. If direct contact with the head is not a penalty then I don’t know what it.

Whether it is accidental, careless, reckless or malicious will only determine what, if any punishment is necessary.

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:39 am  

Father Ted wrote:

there won't be many big games we win this season, if any.

Just like the last two seasons under the clown. Yet we've extended the clowns contact twice. Baffling.

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:42 am  

it was a hugely disappointing result and shows exactly where we as a club are at the moment, barely able to compete with a Warrington side that had been ravaged by Covid that caused 9 of their first team squad to either miss the game, or struggle through it.

God help us if we'd been facing a fully fit Warrington side.

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:06 am  

Trainman wrote:

You’re comments fall down when you take into account that he went off and failed a HIA therefore he is having a rest for a week.

The bottom line is he got kicked (or shinned if you prefer) in the head which caused him to loose the ball. If direct contact with the head is not a penalty then I don’t know what it.

Whether it is accidental, careless, reckless or malicious will only determine what, if any punishment is necessary.

You haven’t understood my post. Of course he failed the HIA. Because he cracked on he was knocked out. He wasn’t, he blagged it. We’ve all blagged it. We’ve all blagged a doctor. My point was, he wasn’t knocked out and then a few seconds later was. So how can my post fall down as you point out?
He’s let Wigan down as he’s unavailable for selection by carrying out and on a kid-ology. Leave that to football players to roll over 5 times and have the worst leg injury in the last 100 years.

I’ve no argument about the technicalities of the penalty or not. The point being Marshall acted the goat. Was it worth the bluff to try and get the call on a penalty and exempt himself from error, however small or sole.
Let’s be honest, Marshall should have handled that ball better, a brush against Charnley’s shin should not have caused him to lose possession. He knew that and that’s where the bluff got played.

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:20 am  

So he was that desperate to blag it, he conned the doc in to thinking he was concussed and therefore ruled himself out of the next game?

You’ve somehow outdone yourself Duckie

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:38 am  

Grimmy wrote:

Think you might want to brush up on the rules yourself there bud. Accidental things aren't penalties, they're accidents. I do think it should have gone to the video ref to check whether it was intentional/reckless though.

I think that would be covered under the careless part of the rule so that covers accidental contact. I can only remember accidental head clashes or contact with head not in possession being overlooked as non offences in last few seasons.

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:40 am  

That Mon wrote:

I think that would be covered under the careless part of the rule so that covers accidental contact. I can only remember accidental head clashes or contact with head not in possession being overlooked as non offences in last few seasons.

Careless isn't the same as accidental. We can talk about whether he was careless/reckless, and if he was then he needs penalising and red carding given the severity of the offence, but an accidental kick is not a penalty no matter how many times people claim it as fact. I've just watched it back this morning, there is less than a second between Marshall dropping to the floor and Charnley making contact. I don't think it's even careless from Charnley, he's just chasing after a loose ball.

Re: Lam's after-match comments : Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:44 am  

It's not so much the letter of the law, it's how they are interpreted, especially in the current climate on head injuries. We've all heard refs on mike say to players, I'm sorry, I realise it was accidental, but it's still a penalty.