Asiata was sin binned for a low tackle which resembled the tackles that he used against the Saints last year that led to major injuries.
However, in this tackle, according to Carney on Sky Sports, some of the key indicators of foul play were absent.
He said: “Some of the indicators, gentlemen, are off the feet at the point of contact, fail to attempt to wrap their arms, make contact with the legs of the ball carrier on or below the knee, put their own head in front of the ball carrier, and another one is looking down on the ground.
“I would say, looking at John Asiata’s tackle, I would say he’s probably guilty only of looking at the ground. All the others, he tries to wrap, he doesn’t get his head in front of the tackler, he makes contact above the leg, it’s probably clear.”
Sam Tomkins added: “Yeah, I think he’s safe. I don’t think there’ll be much to come from it. The fact that it’s him and the tackle looks so similar to what he’d done last year, but there is some difference in it.
“The fact that his right arm’s trying to wrap around him first is important.”
John Asiata punished for the past?
This came as Tomkins also suggested that Asiata was being punished more for his past than the present:
“If it was another player, would it have been a sin bin? The referees know exactly why the rule got brought in because of that man and that man alone. You know in the offseason the referees brought these new rules, everyone got shown examples of them, the only example of that tackle was Asiata.”
Jon Wilkin added: “There was a lot of 50-50 little calls that seemed to go St. Helens way, balls, bounces, there was a lot of luck and when that all adds up that leads to an agreed coach. I think both coaches are proud of the effort. Adrian Lam seems to be a bit more aggrieved with the officiating than Paul Wellens. I think both coaches are proud of the effort but Adrian Lam seems to be a bit more aggrieved with the officiating than Paul Wellens.”