99 replies to this topic

[terrywebbisgod]

To be honest, I don't really rate Tomkins, he has it all to prove.

As regards touching Tomkins, when he is on the field any opponent can touch him with impunity providing the manner of any such touching is within the rules - Ablett's clearly was not.

The last time I saw a challenge of this nature in the Superleague the player was banned for months.

Ablett was very fortunate on Friday night, Ganson's handling of the situation was a disgrace but par for the course if you look at his handling of similar situations in Leeds v Wigan games.

Ablett has continued to be lucky with the disciplinary.

If that challenge had been inflicted on a Leeds player by a player from any other club then the ban would have been much longer and the media bleating about it, much louder.

As for O'Loughlin and Tomkins, the reason they got naff all was that the challenges in question were naff all.

Come on, even you've still got one eye to have seen those challenges.
You really do have an inferiority complex about Leeds don't you, or is it just a giant chip on BOTH shoulders.

[shrek]

Speaking as a Wigan fan 3 matches does nothing for us, I'd rather he got 10 minutes in the bin and been free to play against Saints, Castleford and Catalans. As a rugby fan 3 matches is about right.

Still think we need to do something so that those offended against get some benefit, such as the player being banned for 2 matches plus the next time he faces the opponents he committed the offence.

[Ullman]

So the best time to decapitate an opponent is a couple of weeks before your team plays in a big final. Sounds good to me.

Couple of weeks might be pushing it.

[hindle xiii]

Conveniently back for the Cup final and/or the possible crucial last game of the season!

[terrywebbisgod]

Conveniently back for the Cup final and/or the possible crucial last game of the season!

And you seriously believe Ablett would make all the difference inn those games,ffs

[hindle xiii]

And you seriously believe Ablett would make all the difference inn those games,ffs

Nah, just poking the fire.

Haven't much to smile about this side of Pudsey.

[terrywebbisgod]

Nah, just poking the fire.

Haven't much to smile about this side of Pudsey.

Too true.

[hindle xiii]

I wonder how many of those matches are because the hit was on Precious...

Too true.

See, wind up the other side equally!

[saintsbird]

Speaking as a Wigan fan 3 matches does nothing for us, I'd rather he got 10 minutes in the bin and been free to play against Saints, Castleford and Catalans. As a rugby fan 3 matches is about right.

Still think we need to do something so that those offended against get some benefit, such as the player being banned for 2 matches plus the next time he faces the opponents he committed the offence.

I like that idea. Downfall is if another team sign him that would punish his new team or if the team he commited the foul against sign him

[Bitofaboogie]

The problem lies with the referee and the influence that the Rhinos carry at headquarters.

If Ganson had done his job and sent Ablett off then this discussion would not even be taking place.

Ganson is notoriously strict on serious foul play except when it involves serious foul play against Wigan players committed by Leeds players, when he is notoriously lenient, a serial offender in fact.

Salford had Boyle sent off the other week for much less than Ablett's challenge on Tomkins - when this got to the disciplinary Boyle got 1 match. Ablett's offence has warranted a 3 match ban yet he stayed on the field.

The problem lies with the referees, the man that controls them and in this case specifically with Ganson.

[Lee]

Ganson is notoriously strict on serious foul play except when it involves serious foul play against Wigan players committed by Leeds players, when he is notoriously lenient, a serial offender in fact.

You'll have 4 or 5 instances then off top of your head ?

[sam]

The problem lies with the referee and the influence that the Rhinos carry at headquarters.

If Ganson had done his job and sent Ablett off then this discussion would not even be taking place.

Ganson is notoriously strict on serious foul play except when it involves serious foul play against Wigan players committed by Leeds players, when he is notoriously lenient, a serial offender in fact.

Salford had Boyle sent off the other week for much less than Ablett's challenge on Tomkins - when this got to the disciplinary Boyle got 1 match. Ablett's offence has warranted a 3 match ban yet he stayed on the field.

The problem lies with the referees, the man that controls them and in this case specifically with Ganson.

is this like when you just made up stuff about a certain ref a few months ago...?

[shrek]

I like that idea. Downfall is if another team sign him that would punish his new team or if the team he commited the foul against sign him

Well I'll concede its not a faultless plan but its an improvement.

The player would still be penalised even if at a new club and chances are if he's switched clubs it'll be a regular season game and not a final/cup game which softens the blow.

If the team he signs for the team he committed the foul against, well they can just sort it out in training!!!

[Ullman]

The problem lies with the referee and the influence that the Rhinos carry at headquarters.

If Ganson had done his job and sent Ablett off then this discussion would not even be taking place.

Ganson is notoriously strict on serious foul play except when it involves serious foul play against Wigan players committed by Leeds players, when he is notoriously lenient, a serial offender in fact.

Salford had Boyle sent off the other week for much less than Ablett's challenge on Tomkins - when this got to the disciplinary Boyle got 1 match. Ablett's offence has warranted a 3 match ban yet he stayed on the field.

The problem lies with the referees, the man that controls them and in this case specifically with Ganson.

Why not? He would still have had an appointment with the disciplinary committee.

[1976PMJwires]

You'll have 4 or 5 instances then off top of your head ?

I thought he had a chip on his shoulders...... not a head

[Old Frightful]

Still think we need to do something so that those offended against get some benefit, such as the player being banned for 2 matches plus the next time he faces the opponents he committed the offence.

Worrabout sending the bleeder off in the first place for gawd's sake!

[Bitofaboogie]

Worrabout sending the bleeder off in the first place for gawd's sake!

Spot on.

[Ullman]

Worrabout sending the bleeder off in the first place for gawd's sake!

He certainly deserved it.

[Padge]

when gareth hock got 5 matches for man-handling the ref the ban finished just before the play-offs. the sooner we start giving totally disproportionate bans for stuff like the ablett 'tackle' the better. a couple of 15-20 match bans will sort this sort of thing out. 3 matches is nothing short of a disgrace.

In the 1980s the RFL had a spell of handing out 10 and 12 match bans, it made not one jot of difference, players were still being hauled up on a regular basis.

[Bitofaboogie]

You'll have 4 or 5 instances then off top of your head ?

I could give you 3 off the top of my head:

1) Friday's challenge by Ablett on Tomkins.

2) When Lee Smith stamped on a Wigan player's head in a game at Headingley a couple of years ago - Ganson actually said to Smith "That is totally unacceptable" and then didn't send him off.

3) In the same game Keith Senior came running in from 30 yards away to get involved in a tete-a-tete that was going on - this offence had seen more than one sending-off in other games at the time but did Keith go? Did he fcuk.

If I can remember any more I'll get back to you.