...sounds familiar

Given some of our showings that might be our plan too,.

Passi and Walmsley out for the rest of the season. Huge blow. Would be massively impressive for Saints to go five in a row in such circumstances.

Agree though it wouldn't paint a flattering picture of the rest of the comp. They're bound to dig deep but to win under these circs would actually be a greater achievement than their WCC win IMO

wellans moaning about duty of care with tackles.
last year they used every dirty trick in the book to get serial offender Morgan Knowles off a charge.
what goes around...

Which was massive in itself. Personally I don't think the comp is in a bad a spot as some say. Tim Sheens said the other day that there are more juniors playing the game in the Paramatta catchment area than in the UK. When you consider those odds and the massive differential in the Salary Cap I think we punch way above our weight. Just hoping the new TV deal does not further widen the gap.

Oh, the irony.

It’s embarrassing, injury doesn’t equal foul play, two unfortunate incidents that have ended up with bad injuries.

Yeh I agree.
The outcome should have nothing to do with the disciplinary review.
But sounds like Saints beef is that it was used in one of Knowles (many) appearances at the MRP, but not in Asiata's case.
Again pointing towards painful inconsistency in how they do things.

But Knowles tackles were illegal, that why they brought the injuries into the discussion, Asiatas were legal tackles

The problem is it is the disciplinary rhetoric which determines whether or not the tackle is illegal. I'm sure every club can name numerous occasions where one of their players have been struck with a high tackle for the MRP to describe it " the attacking player turned into the tackle and was falling to the ground as the defender made the tackle causing the tackle to slide up and strike the head" NFA. The same tackle next week is worded "the defender was tackling high irrespective of the attacker falling and was reckless as to whether or not there was contact with the head" 2 Matches. Same tackle different outcome solely on how the minutes were worded. Having watched the tackle on Paasi it could be worded " defender makes tackle low and in doing so is reckless as to whether shoulder strikes knee putting undue pressure to the knee". Reading most of the club boards it seems agreed the MRP is not fit for purpose in general, The worrying thing is that 3 players in this game have been injured due to the tackling technique of one player. Coaches may now consider giving instruction, based on the technique, on how to stop big packs, resulting in more serious injury.

You could make every single tackle sound dangerous if you worded it correctly.

Im guessing your high tackle comments are regarding Matuatias ban, his was late, high and he's got previous, compared to Shorrocks who was just high, not late, and was punished with a red card. He probably deserved two and Shorrocks one.

I agree that the MRP does make a lot of weird decisions though and probably does need over haul.

What doesn't help is fans dissecting every tackle and decision when they lose, trying to undermine every decision, it makes them look entitled and sore losers. Even more so when their coach spits their dummy out also.

We’ve seen that movie a lot more than you have.
Agree you aren’t looking as fluid with the ball but under Cunningham you had a lovely balance of clueless attack and woeful defence. Wellens has still plenty of work to do to plumb such depths.


The injuries up front may mean you play a more open game and improve the attack. You still have a lot of class players.

Not been able to see the Walmsley one but the Paasi one he does grab the leg but he’s a bit kamikaze, it’s when Holmes then comes in on top and Asiata has the leg. Paasi gets twisted. No consolation for Saints but he will be a marked man now.

Saints looking more and more depleted by the minute. We really must win this one if we have any hope of playoff footy…..