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.

the look on pettybournes face after paul wood punched him twice was like "you hit like a girl"

No the force would be the movement of the brain in this instance. and it is often the rapid acceleration of the brain which causes brain injury not the impact. Its why you have a head rest in a car. Your head being thrown forwards then backwards at speed can cause brain injury even though it may not actually hit anything with great force.

Pettybournes pawing wasnt much better. It was like watching too drunk grizzly bears.

Both should be up before the PFU.

It also begs the question of what the TJ's role is - how did the ref and both touchies miss what happened? It seems that some (maybe the moonlighting refs?) run on at with the flag at every opportunity, whilst others don't get involved.

Perhaps it goes back to long and interesting story told by a recently retired official in another thread; they're poorly trained, badly resourced and not properly evaluated. I can see the argument for using the VR more often - the problem there of course is that introduces more inconsistency, because you only get good quality decisions at televised matches; I'd rather make better use of the existing resources than add more.

im sure i read somewhere that there will be a vr at every game next year, not sure where we will find them from though

I haven't seen the incident but MM has form on this sort of thing so no surprises there.
And TA is correct regarding the forces on the brain and how an unprotected/unaware person being hit when they aren't expecting it can do much greater damage than a direct head impact (from whatever body part of the other person).
Whiplash & rotational forces (which are increased with wearing helmets/headguards on impact by an alarming%%) that can and do effect the brain are vastly underestimated by many sports. Late shots on a kicker for example that mean the neck and head are forced at high speed back and forth (or the otherway round for a for a front on challenge), this needn't even be a hit to the head itself.
Late challenges that are anything but a traditional waist tackle that are difficult to pull out from due to your body position should be given the same amount of punishment as a reckless head high tackle..either that or the sport is accepting that it is okay for rugby players to be injured with little protection by affirming that these things won't be punished on-field which is what will reduce the incidents of such.

Aren't you from Leigh? You're more of a Wigginer than me.