I get frustrated by how far some people will go to defend the refs.

You say the Field one was innocuous but, in regards to impact, the shot to Field was far worse than the shot from Byrne.

You, the refs and the wannabe pretend lawyers can use all your BS buzzwords to justify whatever you want. ATEOTD, it's either an accidental shot to the head or not. Accidents happen in different ways. Both situations were lazy and accidental. Byrne's however resulted in a red + 4 games. It's completely and utterly wrong.

I think the ruling lacks consistency and that’s what frustrates players and fans alike. Our game is incredibly fast and it is impossible for a player to alter his tackling technique in a millisecond, or pull out of a tackle (Miski on O’Brien shown In real time is a fair challenge, slowed down to the nth degree it can be adjudged as ‘slightly’ late). Will Moylan and Lam be sat in the stands next week? We shall have to wait and see but if the MRP are consistent they will have to keep Byrne and Vaughan company.

Hill’s footwork at the line is fantastic. I am surprised that it has taken so long for him to get a start as he is a big favourite of the coach.

He seems to have put on quite a bit of muscle during preseason and he looks a lot stronger.
He’s from good stock and that with Peet’s guidance I can see him as a regular in the starting 17 from next season irrespective of who is available.
I was really pleased when we signed Eseh but Hill looks the better prospect of the two at the moment but obviously Eseh’s injury may be preventing him showing how he his developing.
With Havard, Hill and Eseh we have some incredible potential in the front row.

This 1000000%

The ref got the call right last night. He, like others have said, used a bit of common sense. Like you say, it's a fast paced game and accidents happen. We don't need players sitting out periods of games for it.

The fact however that one week, a ref can use common sense & the week before, in the biggest game of the season, he can can't - screams to me that he wanted to send him off and have it all about himself.

OT and to another point and I think Nicky Kiss raised earlier in the week, asking where the uproar was from other fans etc. I think we can safely say, after French got dumped on his head, that if it's a Wigan player getting lifted in a tackle it's ok.

It's all just a bit ridiculous, but this is what happens when people keep sticking up for the officiating. The club's don't say anything publicly, sky glance over it and there's no accountability in the media either. If this was footy, they'd be all over it. They'd be hammered on TV by pundits and managers, they'd be mentioned in the press, or debated on Talk Sport etc. we just bend over and take it.

Whilst Mago can be fun to watch and provides something a bit different, I'm not sure he makes the side in the higher intensity games. Even last night he was struggling to keep up mid way through the 2nd half and Wigan weren't exactly under pressure. For me the top four props are ultimately Thompson, Dupree, Havard and Cooper but Hill isn't far behind at all. Liam Byrne as said previously is a tough one to work out at the moment - coaches will obviously know more about the finer details of what he brings but I suspect he's picked more for his defensive qualities.

I think your argument is fundamentally flawed in that the referees are applying criteria that is set for them by the governing body. Moylan was yellow because Field was falling on contact which is a mitigating factor according to criteria. Byrne was red because Percival wasn't falling. It seems very clear to me.

I think there have been issues with the MRP this year - the level of successful appeals has demonstrated a lack of consistency. But referees in this context shouldn't be blamed for doing the job that has been set out for them. If they ignore the criteria and choose to go another way they'll be out of a job just as anyone would if they choose not to follow the rules of the workplace.

I understand you don't like it and you may think everyone's gone soft etc but the underlying fact (not opinion but fact) is that the game can't play without insurance and insurance wasn't going to be provided without the changes. Write a letter to the insurers if you're angry about it.

I think the four you mention are the ones who deserve their places as things stand. Certainly the first three - Cooper's injuries come into consideration now and there are others not far behind.

Thinking about how they complement each other though, Thompson Dupree and Havard are all comfortable playing big minutes, so it begs the question whether Mago offering something different for half an hour or so adds more than someone with a better engine and more solid defender? From where we are now I think he probably does, but that will probably become clearer as the season goes on.

It really is an embarrassment of riches though. Hill looks as good as prospect for his age as any front rower I've seen in this country for a long time.

How do UFC & Boxing get insurance?

Because getting hit on the head is part of the rules they sign up to, not the case in either code of rugby

Haha what a cop out. It's pathetic the lengths people will go to just not admit the refs are wrong.

You talk about flawed logic, but like others have pointed it, it was a shoulder charge. Last time I checked you can't shoulder charge anyone. If Field doesn't slip, it's still a reckless tackle. Not sure what's so difficult to understand about that, or how that doesn't factor into said mitigation. If he goes feet first into his head it's a red. If he goes shoulder first it isn't. Great selective logic that. Well done.

If we're all about stopping head contact, then it doesn't matter if it's accidental, "mitigating" or downright thuggery. It's all got the potential to cause a brain injury. This seems like COVID logic. It's dangerous so don't go to the pub to drink, but it's ok to go if you have something to eat. You either accept there's a risk and crack on, or you don't.

Pretty much agree with all of that. I said last week, I think there are loads of games there for Mago this year and he's so improved from the last couple of years but put us in a final tomorrow, with a full squad and I don't think Peet picks him. Now he might get in because of injury or suspension or because of a loss of form for another prop but all things equal, I do expect to see him end up sitting as 6th/7th choice prop and that is probably where most people had him at the start of the season. People might disagree but Good Friday tells you where Peet sits with him. He admitted last night that he tried keep his best defenders on the field late in the game on Good Friday to try and hold that lead but he wouldn't need to flog Thompson, Ellis etc if he has Havard and Cooper sat there.

You're all over the place. You want people to admit refs are wrong and then complain about the mitigating factors that are set by the governing body. They've removed 'reckless' and they've also removed any reference to intent. It's simply - is contact made with the head? Is it direct? Is it forceful? Is the ball carrier falling?

Its a shame that car insurers arent keen on the 'accept there's a risk and crack on' philisophy - would have saved me a few hundred quid this month. Unfortunately the insurers of the sport aren't keen on that idea either. No-one is happy about that - the players aren't even happy about it. The consensus amongst players seems to be that they'd be happy to accept the risk as they know what they're signing up for. Insurance companies aren't happy with that in small part because of the number of lawsuits. That's what is underlying all of this and no amount of dummy spitting or name calling is going to change it.

[sizeBut its a worse case scenario outcome then than rugby though.[/size

The other factor with combat sports like boxing is the rest period, you may only fight three or four times a year. With concussion injury the rest period is a major consideration.