The cynical nasty side is where the similarity ends. Newton was a brilliant rugby player, McIlorum has nothing else to his game.

Certainly not the shoulder charge some are insinuating. But certainly reckless and late.

it was a shoulder charge in exactly the same way as Moons was. A shoulder thrown forward from front on and far more dangerous. Its rarely the actual impact that causes serious injury but the whiplash effect, thats why amateur boxing is phasing out head guards, whilst it protects the initial impact it exacerbates the whiplash effect. Such an injury is far more likely from that type of hit on a prone and defenceless player than a player taking a high shot running and prepared.

It was also, late, cowardly and unnecessary.

Late hits on the kicker and passer are cowardly, dangerous and add nothing to the game. I have absolutely no idea why we give them tacit acceptance and even encourage them with the 'committed' justification. The game loses nothing if MciLorum gets sent off there, because if he knew he was going to be sent off, there isnt a chance he makes that tackle

The title of this thread is 'consistency', it all most of us ask for. There is no doubt it las late and he could have pulled out. However he didn't hit him particularly hard, it wasn't a shoulder charge and wasn't high. I've probably seen about 50 of those on televised games this year and would guess there is another 100 it so gone unpunished so demanding MM be banned is certainly not consistent.

I agree he should be punished as there is no need for it but so should everyone else. As they haven't been then a precedent has been set. I thought it was meant to be an automatic 10 mins in the bin but that seems to have been forgotten.

MM's shoulder didn't make contact whereas Moon's did. As for it being rare for the actual impact to cause serious injury, I can only assume you regard concussion as fairly minor.

Don't have any issue with the rest of your post apart from the notion that MM wouldn't have made the challenge had he known he'd be sent off for it. I certainly wouldn't stake my mortgage on that.

I'm not sure I'd agree with Cummins if he told me the pope was catholic

MciLorums shoulder certainly did make contact. Just not with the head.

I didnt say that concussion was fairly minor, i said that more of these injuries are not caused by the initial impact but by the rapid movement of the brain in the head from a whiplash effect. The head itself is built to withstand that kind of direct trauma. Hence the example of amateur boxing. Where the blow is actually exacerbated by the headguard as it causes the head (and a such the brain) to move quicker due to the added weight. This can cause more brain injuries rather than protecting from them.


i wouldnt assume to bet anything on McIlorums stupidity but i do think we would see far fewer.

OT here, but how would extra weight make the head move more quickly?

force = mass x acceleration, increase the mass, increase the force.

It was late, deliberate and a shoulder charge - the on report was a cop-out and I think I heard M Monaghan say something of that nature to the ref.

As for the so-called punch-up - powder puff it may have been, but Wood should have walked for that; I suspect the usual laissez-faire attitude towards this kind of incident will prevail in the run up to the play-offs; wouldn't want to be accused of a witch-hunt would they?

I have a bit of sympathy with the ref re the on report as play had continued for another tackle or so. But it highlights the inconsistency where if Warrington had stood there and not continued play they would've got a penalty and an on-field punishment for McIlorum.
This and the Moon incident (not the actual punishment of sending off, but the way the decision was reached) where the ref was going to allow play to continue and would've done had the Saints player not been injured and then the incident and punishment was adjudged by the VR shows that there are big problems and deep inconsistencies with how refs use the VR and resources available to them.

I agree. Maybe it's time to allow the Refs to refer big decisions like these that are not seen in full by the on field ref to the VR. If that had been the case last night, Pettybourne would have stayed on the field and Wood would have seen red, along with Mickey Mac later in the game.

it would make sense wouldnt it.

Why isnt 'on report' meaning a referral to the VR? Anything untoward is picked up post match in the review anyway. On report doesnt actually seem to be anything.

'on report' annoys the hell out of me. Everyone in the ground can see the countless replays and see what foul play has taken place yet the culprit gets to stay on the field of play and help his side to a possible victory when he should be sat in the changing rooms.

In the majority of cases you can come to a conclusion on the offence within a couple of views so at games with the VR it should be used without doubt.

I agree with you in one sense Biff, if the official sees it he deals with it. I think they use it however in that the video evidence is incontrovertible and players with good briefs have, in the past, managed to dodge the bullet of a match officials report where they may have been an inconsistency that was ironically proven wrong, by video.