Sport Today

by **Geff Fost** » Sat, 13 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Newsflash!

After watching the Bulls v Wigan match the British Diving
Association have been in urgent conference with Wigan Coach
Graeme West.

Apparantely they feel that Simon Haughton could become the
new star of British Diving after watching his display on
Friday night.

They will however face stiff competion for his services from
several Hollywood directors who are seeking stunt doubles for
the latest bunch of action films which are due out shortly.

Geff

-------------------------------------------------
Geff Foster |"The Zone

St. Helens, Merseyside | of it's own"
-------------------------------------------------

by **Paul McNall** » Sat, 13 Jul 1996 04:00:00

net.com> writes

Quote:

>Apparantely they feel that Simon Haughton could become the
>new star of British Diving after watching his display on
>Friday night.

Hardly dived. I mean he milked it better than a (16 year old!) Cornish
schoolgirl on work experience at the local farm but he did cop it in the
throat.

To be honest I thought was Smith was shit with wrong decisions for both
sides. But then I can say that cos I'm neutral for a change.

ww
|\---/ >

\____/ --------------------------------------------

by **Gordon Baxte** » Sun, 14 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Newsflash!

>After watching the Bulls v Wigan match the British Diving
>Association have been in urgent conference with Wigan Coach
>Graeme West.

>Apparantely they feel that Simon Haughton could become the
>new star of British Diving after watching his display on
>Friday night.

I must admit, when I first saw it, I thought, "Jeez, that was a bad one", but
after seeing it a few times from head on, and slowed down, I think you're dead
right. Haughton seemed to jerk his own head around, rather than it happening
from the impact of the blow. Considering it looked so bad at speed, how come
Haughton was up and running around so quickly? If the hit really was that bad,
he should have been carried off.

I hope the powers that be take a close look at this one. It would be
interesting to hear what Mr. Haughton has to say for himself.

Gordon Baxter

by **Vibrating Bum-Faced Goa** » Sun, 14 Jul 1996 04:00:00

: >
: >Newsflash!
: >
: >After watching the Bulls v Wigan match the British Diving
: >Association have been in urgent conference with Wigan Coach
: >Graeme West.
: >
: >Apparantely they feel that Simon Haughton could become the
: >new star of British Diving after watching his display on
: >Friday night.
: >

: I must admit, when I first saw it, I thought, "Jeez, that was a bad one", but
: after seeing it a few times from head on, and slowed down, I think you're dead
: right. Haughton seemed to jerk his own head around, rather than it happening
: from the impact of the blow. Considering it looked so bad at speed, how come
: Haughton was up and running around so quickly? If the hit really was that bad,
: he should have been carried off.

It looked really bad at the ground, but I was someway off. Having watched
the game about 35 times on tape now though it does look a bit milked.

Cheers,
Chris - still enthused.

--
Bradford Bulls RLFC | Rugby League Home Page:
Wembley Finalists 1996 | http://www.brad.ac.uk/~cgrussel/
British Beef - You won't | Full club-by-club guide to the 1996
get better! | European Super League season

by **Paul McNall** » Sun, 14 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>It looked really bad at the ground, but I was someway off. Having watched
>the game about 35 times on tape now though it does look a bit milked.

I think when you watch it in slow motion just as he hits the ground his
eyes flick around to see where everyone is so he certainly wasn't
stunned. End of the day though it was high and gave him the chance to
milk it. If it had been around the waist he couldn't have.

Shit tackle=obvious conclusion milked or not unfortunately.

Paul

ww
|\---/ >

\____/ --------------------------------------------

by **John Lancast** » Mon, 15 Jul 1996 04:00:00

On Sat, 13 Jul 1996 16:26:20 +0100, Paul McNally

Quote:

>Shit tackle=obvious conclusion milked or not unfortunately.

The obvious conclusion being a big ban and fine followed by a let off
on Thursday, maybe ?

John Lancaster
St Helens, Merseyside, UK
--------------------------
St Helens - Challenge Cup Winners 1996

by **p matthe** » Mon, 15 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>from the impact of the blow. Considering it looked so bad at speed, how come
>Haughton was up and running around so quickly? If the hit really was that bad,
>he should have been carried off.

Perhaps Haughton did milk it a little. I used to play union quite a
bit. One training session I got an elbow in the throat that floored me
for a few minutes. I was out of it for a few minutes. it only took a
minute or two and I was back up and running.

Smith had an abysmal game overall, but I think that was the right
decision. There were more elbows flying around that should have
warranted ten minutes, including Mr Edwards! Farrell was penalised for
intent, yet within minutes Nickle went in with far more obvious intent
and got away scot free.Wigan had two tries disalowed for forward pass/
knock on that looked perfectly ok to me.

Paul.
-------------------------------------------------
"You can't search my soul without a Warrant"

Westhoughton, Lancs UK
-------------------------------------------------

by **Paul McNall** » Tue, 16 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>There should also be no option for the disciplinary committee to NOT
>impose a ban either. It should be automatic.

Like in Footy. Get sent off, get a ban. No appeal system that's just
taken as read unless the referee admits he made a mistake.

This should probably be another thread but I'll kick it off here seeing
as it's being skirted around anyway. Why is it in RL we hold all our
officials descisions up for scrutiny in the press?

To compare with football again if a ref makes a mistake (ie dodgy
penalty or goal from offside) he isn't held up for a media ***ing.
It's just accepted and reported that the ref make a "dubious decison".
In RL refs get demoted in a blaze of publicity "REF GETS IT WRONG AND
LOSES JOB!" style headlines.

Footy has accepted that refs make mistakes and has learned to live with
it, tough as it is. Managers whinge about losing on dodgy goals but you
never here anything more after the interview finishes.

Anything slightly funny and McCallum is on their back in RL and it's
reported which makes us look like***s. Fair enough, get the standards
as high as possible but when it comes down to it does this particular
laundry need to washed in the papers.

Paul
ww
|\---/ >

\____/ --------------------------------------------

by **Geff Fost** » Tue, 16 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>That's true, and btw I hope Donougher gets a ban even though it is his
>first sending off in this country because for a few weeks running now
>Bradford players have been getting off pretty lightly.

>The thing is though diving, IMO, is inexcusable. Little bits of
>gamesmanship are fine and an established part of the game but feigning
>injury in an attempt to reduce the numbers of the opposition is
>disgraceful. Donougher deserved to walk but Haughton deserves a ***y
>good kick up the backside. He was smaller than me when he played for
>Dudley Hill, I should have ***ted him one when I had the chance. :)

A couple of years ago he tried chatting up our kid's missus outside the
Turnkey in Wigan, he ended up flat on his arse with a crowd round him.

Unfortunately two coppers where stood right next to him at the time and
he earned himself a night in the cells.

A small price to pay eh :)

Geff

-------------------------------------------------
Geff Foster |"The Zone

St. Helens, Merseyside | of it's own"
-------------------------------------------------

by **WiganRLf** » Tue, 16 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>: Shit tackle=obvious conclusion milked or not unfortunately.

>That's true, and btw I hope Donougher gets a ban even though it is his
>first sending off in this country because for a few weeks running now
>Bradford players have been getting off pretty lightly.

Quite right you two and, BTW, I can't stand players who take a dive either
BUT this head high stuff has got to stop.

The inconsistent way the sendings off are being dealt with is the
problem. At the moment its almost worth a player sticking his arm out and
hoping the ref sees it as a reflex action. If he's lucky he may just get
a good talking to and will have spoiled a clean break by the attacker
leaving the attacking team with little advantage.

I reckon if a head high tackle is penalised then the player should walk
every time. Reflex action or not. Its the only way to educate the
players into eradicating this dangerous play.

There should also be no option for the disciplinary committee to NOT
impose a ban either. It should be automatic.

I would suggest 4 weeks for the "accidental" tackles and 8 for deliberate
foul play.

4 matches might seem harsh but they have go to stop the players from even
thinking about tackling like this.

It will definitely be interesting to see what Doughager (?) gets for
Fridays attempt. I reckon he will get off. If he cops a ban it will be
more to do with the fact Bradford seem to on a "roll" as far as head
hunting goes rather than the merits (or lack of) of his offence.

Dave

Wigan RLFC - Simply the Best

Shaun Edwards for Prime Minister

by **p matthe** » Wed, 17 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>I think you're right, Dave. From where I was behind the goal on Friday,
>it looked like a reflex tackle - but what difference does malice or lack
>thereof make to the guy who's been decapitated. There is a spate of
>headhunting around at the moment, and the only way to stop it is to make
>it an automatic sending off. No licence for the ref, no question of
>malice: you go above the shoulder, you walk.
>Similar arguments apply to other offences. It always amuses me that refs
>only appear to be able to crack down on one foul at once - either head
>tackles are OUT or holding down, etc, etc etc. Why can't they just
>enforce the ***y rules?

With you 100%

Paul.

by **Geff Fost** » Wed, 17 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>>I think you're right, Dave. From where I was behind the goal on Friday,
>>it looked like a reflex tackle - but what difference does malice or lack
>>thereof make to the guy who's been decapitated. There is a spate of
>>headhunting around at the moment, and the only way to stop it is to make
>>it an automatic sending off. No licence for the ref, no question of
>>malice: you go above the shoulder, you walk.

>>Similar arguments apply to other offences. It always amuses me that refs
>>only appear to be able to crack down on one foul at once - either head
>>tackles are OUT or holding down, etc, etc etc. Why can't they just
>>enforce the ***y rules?

>With you 100%

>Paul.

Something else which has always annoyed me and I was talking to Chris Russell
about it the other evening.

When the ball carrier is on the floor and is trying to get up he feigns being
pushed down by the tackling player and instantly looks at the ref. The ref
with either give a penalty for lying on or will wave it away.

Surely if the ref says that he was not pushed then he must have dove, why is
it then that the ref never gives a penalty to the defending side.

Geff

-------------------------------------------------
Geff Foster |"The Zone

St. Helens, Merseyside | of it's own"
-------------------------------------------------

by **Adam Lawrenc** » Wed, 17 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Quite right you two and, BTW, I can't stand players who take a dive either
>BUT this head high stuff has got to stop.

>The inconsistent way the sendings off are being dealt with is the
>problem. At the moment its almost worth a player sticking his arm out and
>hoping the ref sees it as a reflex action. If he's lucky he may just get
>a good talking to and will have spoiled a clean break by the attacker
>leaving the attacking team with little advantage.

>I reckon if a head high tackle is penalised then the player should walk
>every time. Reflex action or not. Its the only way to educate the
>players into eradicating this dangerous play.

>There should also be no option for the disciplinary committee to NOT
>impose a ban either. It should be automatic.

I think you're right, Dave. From where I was behind the goal on Friday,
it looked like a reflex tackle - but what difference does malice or lack
thereof make to the guy who's been decapitated. There is a spate of
headhunting around at the moment, and the only way to stop it is to make
it an automatic sending off. No licence for the ref, no question of
malice: you go above the shoulder, you walk.

Similar arguments apply to other offences. It always amuses me that refs
only appear to be able to crack down on one foul at once - either head
tackles are OUT or holding down, etc, etc etc. Why can't they just
enforce the ***y rules?

Adam

by **Paul McNall** » Wed, 17 Jul 1996 04:00:00

net.com> writes

Quote:

>When the ball carrier is on the floor and is trying to get up he feigns being
>pushed down by the tackling player and instantly looks at the ref. The ref
>with either give a penalty for lying on or will wave it away.

Incident like this at Salford v Wakefield this weekend. Near the end of
the game Lukeni Savelio made a tackle and got up, somewhere along the
line both players got tangled up and the Wakefield guy fell down again
to milk the penalty. Ref didn't give it but they were still both tangled
up, boots or something. Then Savelio lost his temper with the antics and
they ended up punching shit out of each other (along with about 10
players) and both being sin-binned.

If the ref had sorted it initially etc...

Paul
ww
|\---/ >

\____/ --------------------------------------------

Sport Today

GB's latest Olympic Hope.

GB's latest Olympic Hope.

GB's latest Olympic Hope.

GB's latest Olympic Hope.

GB's latest Olympic Hope.

GB's latest Olympic Hope.

GB's latest Olympic Hope.

GB's latest Olympic Hope.

GB's latest Olympic Hope.

GB's latest Olympic Hope.

GB's latest Olympic Hope.

GB's latest Olympic Hope.

GB's latest Olympic Hope.

GB's latest Olympic Hope.

GB's latest Olympic Hope.