the problem you've got Stu (in this instance) is you are on a Wigan board and the majority will see it differently to you as a Saints fan, and it works the other way round too, when it comes to Wigan indiscretions

.

However, in general, you assessment of the MRP / some refs is fair. It is baffling sometimes, that someone you expect to see up there isnt, and equally, ones you dont notice during a game are up there and get a ban

Re Sironen, he has history, and was up for 3 in the MRP, so there was a good chance he was going to cop a ban and equally Lees, has been sin binned a couple of times this year, with no fault found so to speak, but then no ban. So from that perspective, you can sort of understand some of the frustration from Saints fans, but sin binning doesnt necessarily mean ban incoming

The margins this year in particular with regards to the late hits are so fine its untrue. However, i watched the Wigan v Leeds game back last night whilst riding my bike, and listened to the commentary when Tetavano got sent off. All the former players, were of the opinion he could have pulled out and it was unnecessary to hit Smith. I didnt think it was nasty, but marginally late, and it did end up a bit high. He has copped a 2 game ban for it too, so the MRP must have considered it bad enough to warrant that.

i also agree with your comment about high hit and broken ankle. Unfortunately, thats bad luck and not an expected injury from a high shot.

I'm not defending Lee's swinging arm, it was reckless and I would've expected a 1-2 game ban. He dropped the ball from a carry and it seemed the red mist came down and he swung a lazy arm. However as I've said I'm disputing the broken ankle as a result. It's completely different to the Knowles/Cooper incident.

We are certainly no angels however when you look at the timings of these "late hits" there are milliseconds in them. The Sironen one- if he leaves Croft then its the chance of a dummy by Croft and a walk in try, he has to effect the tackle and was committed. There was no malice in it. Lomax takes it to the line frequently and is clobbered but nothing the other way.

Whilst I appreciate that previous form is causing the bans, its also unfair to single players out purely because they have been guilty before.

We are on the verge of a tic and pass competition with the best players in the stands every week. It's a joke.

i've just seen the Lees tackle on twitter for the 1st time. I agree that D is harsh, and that in this instance taking a broken ankle into account as a result of a high tackle is incorrect IMO. I've posted on this forum and the Warriors fans previously, that taking an injury outcome on a tackle is going down a dangerous route / precedent. I've seen high tackles (bad ones) where the player has just got up, cos they are hard as nails / hard head etc etc, but someone else has seemingly only been caught lightly but outcome far worse. with Cooper / Knowles, there is far more chance that the injury was as a result of the tackle than the Lees one at weekend, and in that instance, i can understand that it could be used when grading the discretion

I think we all know that some players, across all teams, play the game right on the edge, and at times, as you say, are a split second off with their timing. Unfortunately, given the current rulings, they either need to adapt, or accept that they are going to cop bans. I know as fans we want to see the star players on the pitch, but equally, given the pending court case, we also need to protect the players or another court case in a few years time could be the end of the game as RL aint flush with millions in the bank

I was being facetious Stu. I wasn't directly linking a swinging arm to a broken ankle!

On a more serious note though, the constant excusing of Saints players behaviour (and by that, I'm not suggesting you condone it) is starting to grate a bit. There's always mitigating factors when they transgress. Knowles didn't really mean to put Cooper out therefore his reckless tackle was excusable because "he's not that sort of player etc". Lees suffer red mist and it was just a "lazy arm". Sironen's multiple bans are all borderline (yet he keeps making the same mistake) or, God help us, persecution from the refs or disciplinary. Etc, etc, etc.

It's becoming a joke. There's nothing funnier that the Redvee lot constantly referring to Smithies, or Wigan players in general, as thugs.

I'm not sure everyone is condoning such behaviour. I talk to a lot of Saints fans who are frustrated at Matautia, Knowles and Sironen constantly being banned. They do need to learn and adapt and I would say 90% of the bans I have agreed with.

I just honestly feel that the one on Saturday was a joke. I also genuinely feel that other similar types of hits are happening all across SL but not being cited.

Do I think that we are being targeted on purpose to stop 5 in a row? Is it a conspiracy? No but the lack of consistency is appalling.

I specifically said you aren't condoning it, Stu. However there is a lot of excusing it from Saints fans in general. I see the frustration with the three mentioned but I also see a lot of the "not really their fault but need to learn" or "not that sort of player" type of comments when it's quite clear that the sheer number of offences indicate they are exactly that type of player! For the avoidance of any doubt, I am not suggesting they are intentionally setting out to injure but they are clearly reckless and not learning from it.

Whether Sironen's latest example was a fraction of a second from being a good hit is irrelevant in his particular case. You could equally say it was a fraction of a second the other way from being much worse! The point is, he is constantly doing this type of late hit. Some worse than others, of course, but ALWAYS running the risk of injuring someone. That's reckless. The odd one from a player not known for this type of tackle is one thing but this is why 'previous' is taken into account.

You also get the daft conspiracy theories but we'll leave that out of an adult discussion

Borderline recklessness has been the foundation of Saints attitude in defence. By saying you are committed and couldn't do anything is not an excuse - if you charge at someone in a reckless manner then you are going to commit reckless tackles.

Just as many players have changed they way they charge at kickers and are now much more controlled in their contact there has to be an element of responsibility with the tackler to be able to make a safe tackle.

Correct
Matty Lees has been walking a tightrope with this for a few months now
He did 2 against Warrington 1 High on Dufty iirc were yes he was falling to receive the ball but Lees is flying in and can't control where he hits if he alters his position, and 1 were his knees made contact with a head when he was charging in at 100mph, yes at that speed things can go wrong and he may be only slightly out, but flying in with no regard for what your going to hit, how the other player may alter his position is reckless.
Hes done a couple others after that match also (not seen this week's so can't comment).

It's not a good one Jukesy: https://twitter.com/RyanFis38416360/sta ... o6l_w&s=19 I've got to say I object to Stu calling it a "lazy arm" too if I'm honest. That's as clear a deliberate attack as you'll see.

It's not a good one Jukesy: https://twitter.com/RyanFis38416360/sta ... o6l_w&s=19 I've got to say I object to Stu calling it a "lazy arm" too if I'm honest. That's as clear a deliberate attack as you'll see.

Quote Phuzzy="Phuzzy"It's not a good one Jukesy: https://twitter.com/RyanFis38416360/sta ... o6l_w&s=19 I've got to say I object to Stu calling it a "lazy arm" too if I'm honest. That's as clear a deliberate attack as you'll see.'" It certainly wasn’t a lazy arm. I’d say the grading is based on the swinging arm direct to the head was off the ball.

Quote Phuzzy="Phuzzy"It's not a good one Jukesy: https://twitter.com/RyanFis38416360/sta ... o6l_w&s=19 I've got to say I object to Stu calling it a "lazy arm" too if I'm honest. That's as clear a deliberate attack as you'll see.'" It certainly wasn’t a lazy arm. I’d say the grading is based on the swinging arm direct to the head was off the ball.

Quote Phuzzy="Phuzzy"It's not a good one Jukesy: https://twitter.com/RyanFis38416360/sta ... o6l_w&s=19 I've got to say I object to Stu calling it a "lazy arm" too if I'm honest. That's as clear a deliberate attack as you'll see.'" Spot on. He weighed him up and then smashed an unprotected guy in the mush. The guy didn’t even have the ball. Irrespective of the ankle injury he should be facing a lengthy ban. If Smithies had done that RedVee would be calling for the death sentence.

Quote Phuzzy="Phuzzy"It's not a good one Jukesy: https://twitter.com/RyanFis38416360/sta ... o6l_w&s=19 I've got to say I object to Stu calling it a "lazy arm" too if I'm honest. That's as clear a deliberate attack as you'll see.'" Spot on. He weighed him up and then smashed an unprotected guy in the mush. The guy didn’t even have the ball. Irrespective of the ankle injury he should be facing a lengthy ban. If Smithies had done that RedVee would be calling for the death sentence.