99 replies to this topic

[Errol Stock]

The RFL could do with producing their own public tariff of sentences.

Here you go

RFL ON FIELD COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES & SENTENCING GUIDELINES – 2010

I was quite stunned to find it..

[jackknife]

i hope the 3match ban stay and he doesnt get let off after the appeal

[3owls]

Taken in isolation most people would view the punishment as correct, however, taken in the context of this season and recent similar incidents Ablett can judge himself harshly done to. A couple of weeks back joel tomkins was found guilty of a late challenge on myler, "making dangerous unneccesary contact with his arm to the players neck, with the opponent in a defenceless position". For this grade A offence the walking ASBO received just a fine despite being cautioned for using his knees on opponents twice already this season. Where is the consistency, a thug like tomkins escapes a ban despite his recent bad disciplinary record while ablett who has never been charged in his whole career (seven years) receives three games. Yes, punish offenders, but show consistency in similar incidents or the whole procedure becomes a joke. I think if ablett appeals the number of games will be reduced, and rightly so. It is quite funny how all the wigan fans tried defending joel tomkins on my recent "protecting the little players " thread, yet they're all jumping out of their prams when it happens to golden bollards. Hypocrites.

[Vambo]

Read that Ablett had got a 3 match ban in the paper this morning and thought to myself 'fair enough'.

I'm quite suprised to come on here and see so many calling for a longer ban.

I guess the RFL are never gonna please everyone!

I thought he should have walked but was also happy that Wigan went on to beat a Leeds team still up to their full numbers. Beating a team who are a man short sometimes takes the gloss off.

Now then... come on Leeds and gave the Stains a good hiding at the weekend

[giwildgo]

Taken in isolation most people would view the punishment as correct, however, taken in the context of this season and recent similar incidents Ablett can judge himself harshly done to. A couple of weeks back joel tomkins was found guilty of a late challenge on myler, "making dangerous unneccesary contact with his arm to the players neck, with the opponent in a defenceless position". For this grade A offence the walking ASBO received just a fine despite being cautioned for using his knees on opponents twice already this season. Where is the consistency, a thug like tomkins escapes a ban despite his recent bad disciplinary record while ablett who has never been charged in his whole career (seven years) receives three games. Yes, punish offenders, but show consistency in similar incidents or the whole procedure becomes a joke. I think if ablett appeals the number of games will be reduced, and rightly so. It is quite funny how all the wigan fans tried defending joel tomkins on my recent "protecting the little players " thread, yet they're all jumping out of their prams when it happens to golden bollards. Hypocrites.

Weren't you part of the discussion with Wigan fans where it was agreed that disciplinary would decide on a suitable punishment for Joel Tomkins because you were so sure he would get a ban? Now you want to be a cry baby about it because he didn't get a ban? Didn't most Wigan fans say the same thing about Ablett? Could it not just be the case that each individual case is considered on the basis of the severity alone and previous record is only a mitigating factor (i.e, to reduce or maximise the ban as appropriate)? In my view, the RFL has left themselves breathing room in applying the maximum to Ablett to allow a reduction by a game on appeal due to previous record - not that I think they should as the Ablett incident was as bad as Howell last year on Tomkins in getting sent off and banned for three games.

Funny how the disciplinary is only considered fair when the punishment is draconian for others and lenient for your team. Simple rule of thumb for me - Coley got two games, the Ablett incident was worse and he got three games, therefore the outcome is fair enough at the moment. Its not like Ablett is a key player for Leeds in any case - a stupid moment from an average player.

[bearman]

According to Boots 'n All, he has put is an appeal. Hearing set for Thursday.

[3owls]

Weren't you part of the discussion with Wigan fans where it was agreed that disciplinary would decide on a suitable punishment for Joel Tomkins because you were so sure he would get a ban? Now you want to be a cry baby about it because he didn't get a ban? Didn't most Wigan fans say the same thing about Ablett? Could it not just be the case that each individual case is considered on the basis of the severity alone and previous record is only a mitigating factor (i.e, to reduce or maximise the ban as appropriate)? In my view, the RFL has left themselves breathing room in applying the maximum to Ablett to allow a reduction by a game on appeal due to previous record - not that I think they should as the Ablett incident was as bad as Howell last year on Tomkins in getting sent off and banned for three games.

Funny how the disciplinary is only considered fair when the punishment is draconian for others and lenient for your team. Simple rule of thumb for me - Coley got two games, the Ablett incident was worse and he got three games, therefore the outcome is fair enough at the moment. Its not like Ablett is a key player for Leeds in any case - a stupid moment from an average player.

I'm not being a cry baby about tomkins not getting a ban, although i thought the two incidents would have yielded a similar if not neccesarily identical length of suspension. Yes i was part of the disussion with wigan fans that the disciplinary would decide whether tomkins was GUILTY of an offence or not, note the key word, GUILTY. The difference between this incident and the joel tomkins/myler incident is that the wigan fans who tried to defend j.tomkins showed a lack of knowledge about the game and it's rules by simply trying to say he was innocent. The disciplinary panel ultimately found him guilty and fined him. The only wigan fan to admit any sort of wrongdoing by tomkins was exiledwiganer who had backed himself into a corner by talking absolute ###### in the first place and was forced to eat humble pie eventually. Having said that at least he had the balls to admit he was wrong. I think you will find my first comment on the ablett incident was "regarding the ablett/tomkins incident, it was a bad one". You will also find that most other leeds fans on here admitted it was a bad challenge and that's the difference, we don't try to defend the indefensible unlike some wigan fans on here that will never admit when their team has done any wrong. Call it a siege mentality or looking through wigan tinted glasses, the wigan contingent lost a great deal of credibility when not a single one of them could admit to seeing anything wrong in what was a late, cowardly cheap shot by tomkins on myler. I accept abletts challenge, unintentional or not, was a shocker, but it wasn't three games worse than tomkins.

[Loiner]

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.

Did steve hampson the wigan fullback once get a ten match ban ?

[Northern Exposure]

I'm not being a cry baby about tomkins not getting a ban, although i thought the two incidents would have yielded a similar if not neccesarily identical length of suspension. Yes i was part of the disussion with wigan fans that the disciplinary would decide whether tomkins was GUILTY of an offence or not, note the key word, GUILTY. The difference between this incident and the joel tomkins/myler incident is that the wigan fans who tried to defend j.tomkins showed a lack of knowledge about the game and it's rules by simply trying to say he was innocent. The disciplinary panel ultimately found him guilty and fined him. The only wigan fan to admit any sort of wrongdoing by tomkins was exiledwiganer who had backed himself into a corner by talking absolute ###### in the first place and was forced to eat humble pie eventually. Having said that at least he had the balls to admit he was wrong. I think you will find my first comment on the ablett incident was "regarding the ablett/tomkins incident, it was a bad one". You will also find that most other leeds fans on here admitted it was a bad challenge and that's the difference, we don't try to defend the indefensible unlike some wigan fans on here that will never admit when their team has done any wrong. Call it a siege mentality or looking through wigan tinted glasses, the wigan contingent lost a great deal of credibility when not a single one of them could admit to seeing anything wrong in what was a late, cowardly cheap shot by tomkins on myler. I accept abletts challenge, unintentional or not, was a shocker, but it wasn't three games worse than tomkins.

Please stop being so rational.

You'll only get a big 'Wigan are badly done to' story from A Bit of a Bogey.

[shrek]

Did steve hampson the wigan fullback once get a ten match ban ?

Yep, but he did get sent off twice in the same weekend though if memory serves!

I also recall Ian Lucas getting either 8 or 10 matches.

[Padge]

Did steve hampson the wigan fullback once get a ten match ban ?

Yes he got sent-off twice in one weekend, Saturday for GB and then on Sunday for Wigan he got two matches for the first followed by two matches for the second, then about 3 weeks later he got sent off again and copped a ten match ban.
Previously to these incidents Hampson had never been sent-off in his 12 year rugby career.

[Padge]

Yep, but he did get sent off twice in the same weekend though if memory serves!

I also recall Ian Lucas getting either 8 or 10 matches.

Same season 89/90 Lucas got 8 and Bell got 10. Wigan had a total of 8 players sent-off that season.

Also in 87/88 Wigan 5 players sent off and one cited by video (out of only 2 all season) 2 players got 4 match bans the highest number for any first division player that season. Only Leigh with 6 had more players sent-off in that division.

Edited by Padge, 04 August 2010 - 09:08 PM.

[terrywebbisgod]

Same season 89/90 Lucas got 8 and Bell got 10. Wigan had a total of 8 players sent-off that season.

Also in 87/88 Wigan 5 players sent off and one cited by video (out of only 2 all season) 2 players got 4 match bans the highest number for any first division player that season. Only Leigh with 6 had more players sent-off in that division.

Is it because they were a dirty team?

[giwildgo]

I'm not being a cry baby about tomkins not getting a ban, although i thought the two incidents would have yielded a similar if not neccesarily identical length of suspension. Yes i was part of the disussion with wigan fans that the disciplinary would decide whether tomkins was GUILTY of an offence or not, note the key word, GUILTY. The difference between this incident and the joel tomkins/myler incident is that the wigan fans who tried to defend j.tomkins showed a lack of knowledge about the game and it's rules by simply trying to say he was innocent. The disciplinary panel ultimately found him guilty and fined him. The only wigan fan to admit any sort of wrongdoing by tomkins was exiledwiganer who had backed himself into a corner by talking absolute ###### in the first place and was forced to eat humble pie eventually. Having said that at least he had the balls to admit he was wrong. I think you will find my first comment on the ablett incident was "regarding the ablett/tomkins incident, it was a bad one". You will also find that most other leeds fans on here admitted it was a bad challenge and that's the difference, we don't try to defend the indefensible unlike some wigan fans on here that will never admit when their team has done any wrong. Call it a siege mentality or looking through wigan tinted glasses, the wigan contingent lost a great deal of credibility when not a single one of them could admit to seeing anything wrong in what was a late, cowardly cheap shot by tomkins on myler. I accept abletts challenge, unintentional or not, was a shocker, but it wasn't three games worse than tomkins.

You'll find I also didn't defend J Tomkins at the time as I didn't offer an opinion on the incident. The reason for this was that my direct view at the game was obscured by the posts, so I couldn't tell for certain where the point of contact was - as a consequence it looked like a nothing incident from where I was sat, but I'm willing to accept my first opinion based on a restricted view was incorrect. Having not seen the video, (because I don't like re-living defeats - yes I concede to being a sore loser), I'm willing to accept that the challenge was a poor one given he was found guilty at the disciplinary, but I'm also willing to accept that they felt it unworthy of a ban.

With regard to the above, I am not in a position to compare the J Tomkins / Ablett incidents on a like for like basis, therefore I referred to the Coley one, which in my opinion was a less serious incident and received a ban of lesser severity, hence I believe the Ablett punishment to be fair.

Edited by giwildgo, 05 August 2010 - 10:25 AM.

[Old Frightful]

Carl Ablett has failed in his efforts to reduce his suspension according to BBC Radio Manchester.

Will post link when I find one...

[GURNER]

ban stays plus £200 costs for time wasting

[Old Frightful]

ban stays plus £200 costs for time wasting

http://www.sportingl...eds_Ablett.html

[Padge]

Is it because they were a dirty team?

If it was they weren't as bad as some (not many) who had more players sent off and a higher amount of match bans.

It sort of makes the claim on another thread that Wigan 'got away with it' during their period of dominance look pretty stupid.

[terrywebbisgod]

If it was they weren't as bad as some (not many) who had more players sent off and a higher amount of match bans.

It sort of makes the claim on another thread that Wigan 'got away with it' during their period of dominance look pretty stupid.

Just as Leeds are perceived to "get away with it" now.

[Padge]

Just as Leeds are perceived to "get away with it" now.

Yes