99 replies to this topic

[ckn]

Remember, these are rugby players we are talking about...expecting some of them to think of the consequences of their actions in the heat of an intense game, is probably expecting too much.

Similarly, expecting guilty players to change their behaviour by banning them for longer periods is, in my opinion,unlikely to be successful. Its a bit like banning NE in the hope that one day, just one day, he might make an intelligent contribution to the debate.

The Disciplinary committee will, I think, have heard and seen more evidence that we did and may well have spent more time than we have in discussing it. In my view, there is no conspiracy against Wigan and no bias towards Leeds in this respect. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

If you keep banning players then it does three things:

1. protects the rest of the playing community for a few games
2. hopefully makes the player think a bit (unlikely)
3. hopefully makes the coach think hard about how much of the salary cap their banned player is taking up.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

The trouble with very long suspensions is that the RFL could run up against restraint of trade laws.

[ckn]

The trouble with very long suspensions is that the RFL could run up against restraint of trade laws.

I believe that has been tried before and the courts have said that as long as the disciplinary panels follow a consistent process and the punishment is not blatantly disproportionate then what they give out will be ruled legal.

The RFL do set themselves a challenge with this though. In union, the IRB publish a "tariff" of sentences that disciplinary bodies must follow or have a damn good reason why they aren't, this protects the panel from appeals and also keeps punishments vaguely consistent. The RFL could do with producing their own public tariff of sentences.

Then there's the discrepancy between the amateur and pro game. If you look at the punishments handed out at NCL or RLC levels and compare that to similar offences in SL or the Championship you'll see a huge difference with those in the pro game getting significantly lighter sentences. I suppose that comes down to the amateur players not being able to afford lawyers to go with them to the disciplinary panels for relatively minor offences.

[Karl Carpenter]

I suppose we'll have to hope Ablett or whoever does it a bit harder next time.

If Tomkins can't take the heat, perhaps he needs to stop being such a niggle cheat himself. Tomkins went down like a sack of shot and milked it for all it was worth.

Cos you can bet your bottom dollar that Ablett won't be the last person to take offence at Tomkins over-inflated ego & delusions of grandeur.

Poor Wigan, getting the excuses in early. Boo hoo.

Can't throw your toys much further than that!

[giwildgo]

I'll mention that to Luke next time i see him

Oh wait a minute, he did get away with that one and the other 8+ in the last couple of years at the RFL

How many previous do you need to cop a ban these days

Its not like there hasn't been in excess of 10 similar incidents in SL since the O'Loughlin / Robinson late hit that have gone unpunished and not even been cited though.

The RFL have set a precedent that they will accept late hits on non-kickers which are not high as punishable by only a penalty. Whilst I may personally disagree with this leniency at least it isn't inconsistent, with O'Loughlin's challenge and resultant punishment not unique in any way.

Edited by giwildgo, 04 August 2010 - 11:06 AM.

[T Dub]

I wonder how the ref actually saw it?

Looked like a bad tackle then 2 players ran in on 1 to violently retaliate.

His options probably were:-
1 Bin Ablett for the tackle - cant really do that under the rules
2 Dismiss Ablett then what to do about the retaliators ? yellow card them, which would leave Wigan down to 11
3 Put it all on report, enough doubt and confusion (did the Wigan player slip into it a bit?) to defer the decision to the judiciary

So thats what he did.

The actions of the retaliators muddied Gansons decision. If they had kept their heads Ablett would probably have been straight red carded and Wigan would have had a man advantage for an hour

[giwildgo]

Serious foul play by an average player dealt with appropriately - no serious injuries. Didn't prevent the other team winning and actually removed a potential excuse for another home defeat (which most Leeds fans absolutely love to use).

Time for everyone to move on now.

Edited by giwildgo, 04 August 2010 - 11:16 AM.

[Northern Exposure]

Can't throw your toys much further than that!

Not if you're carrying the SL trophies for the last 3 seasons, no.

[sam]

Not if you're carrying the SL trophies for the last 3 seasons, no.

very good.

[Impartial Observer]

Ablett is going to appeal the severity of the sentence

[Northern Exposure]

I reckon he'll get one match - max .


Plus a one match ban for Tomkins for 'simulation' and being a wet fart.



http://www.therhinos.../news/14587.php

[Whacky Llama]

Plus a one match ban for Tomkins for 'simulation' and being a wet fart.

Takes one to know one

[MrPosh]

Ablett is going to appeal the severity of the sentence

I hope they add an extra game or two for a frivolous appeal.

[Havenwarrior]

I reckon he'll get one match - max .


Plus a one match ban for Tomkins for 'simulation' and being a wet fart.



http://www.therhinos.../news/14587.php

Should add at last one game on for the audacity off appealing. It was probably the most definite Red Card this SL season, but Ganson bottled it.

HW

[Wendall]

Should add at last one game on for the audacity off appealing. It was probably the most definite Red Card this SL season, but Ganson bottled it.

HW

Agree it was a bad one. If sime no mark like Ablett had ruled a star like Tomkins for the season (and 4 nations) I would have been fuming.

[Northern Exposure]

Agree it was a bad one. If sime no mark like Ablett had ruled a star like Tomkins for the season (and 4 nations) I would have been fuming.

haha!

Wendell you crack me up man.

This is from Warrington, the sides chocka with no marks.

[terrywebbisgod]

Agree it was a bad one. If sime no mark like Ablett had ruled a star like Tomkins for the season (and 4 nations) I would have been fuming.

He has every right to appeal, it doesn't make it right.As for calling him a "no mark", have you ever crossed the white line and played RL to any sort of standard, coming from a bloke who's team have won one CC and are suddenly world beaters every time they walk onto the pitch, that's a bit rich , don't you think?

[ckn]

Threads merged, we don't need more than one...

[Wendall]

haha!

Wendell you crack me up man.

This is from Warrington, the sides chocka with no marks.

Ablett would not make the Wire pack.

[terrywebbisgod]

Ablett would not make the Wire pack.

Yet the Andersons do!