48 replies to this topic

[Dave T]

The Referee put the whole incident on report.

The whole incident is available to everybody to watch again.

It seems only the RFL Disciplinary and the minority on here have seen fit to ignore Ryan Bailey's flying headbutt attempt on Sean Long.

So excuse me if I have only contempt for the ex players' opinions who sit on the panel.

Whilst I think it should have gone on record with the disciplinary (to add to his extensive list) he didn't make contact, so it was never going to attract any kind of punishment.

[Old Frightful]

Whilst I think it should have gone on record with the disciplinary (to add to his extensive list) he didn't make contact, so it was never going to attract any kind of punishment.

Seemingly, nothing Bailey has done to warrant his 24 visits to the RFL Disciplinary since season 2008 has attracted punishment.

Hull FC have announced they are going to appeal.

[nadera78]

Every team needs a prop forward like Ryan Bailey, he serves a valuable purpose in upsetting the opposition and getting them to think about him instead of the game. It's part and parcel of rugby league, and only right that everyone should hate him except his own club's fans.

That said, I can't believe Lee Radford got sent off and suspended for throwing a couple of punches. IMO two players trading blows should be allowed to cool down in the sin bin, or if it's only a little scuffle them give a penalty against the one who started it and get on with the game. I just don't see it as a sending off offence.

The exception, of course, is if one player is hit from behind, that deserves a red card. "Third man in" is a different matter as well because it causes everyone else to join in.

[Dave T]

Seemingly, nothing Bailey has done to warrant his 24 visits to the RFL Disciplinary since season 2008 has attracted punishment.

Hull FC have announced they are going to appeal.

Personally, once you have a certain number of cautions, I would like them to hand out bans for intent as opposed to whether he actually makes full contact. In the CC Final he was highlighted for dropping with his forearm in the last tackle of the game, and then this attempted headbutt. It should be highlighted that this kind of activity isn't welcome and he should get a token 1 match ban IMHO.

[Dave T]

Every team needs a prop forward like Ryan Bailey, he serves a valuable purpose in upsetting the opposition and getting them to think about him instead of the game. It's part and parcel of rugby league, and only right that everyone should hate him except his own club's fans.

That said, I can't believe Lee Radford got sent off and suspended for throwing a couple of punches. IMO two players trading blows should be allowed to cool down in the sin bin, or if it's only a little scuffle them give a penalty against the one who started it and get on with the game. I just don't see it as a sending off offence.

The exception, of course, is if one player is hit from behind, that deserves a red card. "Third man in" is a different matter as well because it causes everyone else to join in.

Hmm, not sure about that tbh. Bailey was not looking at Radford when Radford punched him, so there is an argument that this was a blind-side cheap shot (although I certainly wouldn't say that to Radford!).

[MrPosh]

Personally, once you have a certain number of cautions, I would like them to hand out bans for intent as opposed to whether he actually makes full contact. In the CC Final he was highlighted for dropping with his forearm in the last tackle of the game, and then this attempted headbutt. It should be highlighted that this kind of activity isn't welcome and he should get a token 1 match ban IMHO.

That's a difficult one. I agree with you up to a point, but aren't you effectively punishing a player who has been found not-guilty?

[Dave T]

That's a difficult one. I agree with you up to a point, but aren't you effectively punishing a player who has been found not-guilty?

No, this would be for cautions only, not where they have said there was no issue.

They often put that there was a high tackle, but penalty and caution is sufficient. This caution is supposed to count against players in future disciplinaries, but we have seen players with a handful of cautions and no bans.

Maybe we need a system where after three cautions in a year you are called up ot given an automatic ban.

[GazCoops]

No, this would be for cautions only, not where they have said there was no issue.

They often put that there was a high tackle, but penalty and caution is sufficient. This caution is supposed to count against players in future disciplinaries, but we have seen players with a handful of cautions and no bans.

Maybe we need a system where after three cautions in a year you are called up ot given an automatic ban.

I would agree but it would have to be 3 cautions for the same offence, for example this year it took until the 3rd caution for chicken wing tackles for Bailey to get fined £300, which is how it should work but you also look at his record over the last two years and you will see 11 out of 23 citings are for niggling in the tackle, this shows they are ignoring the problem with Bailey.

[Dave T]

I would agree but it would have to be 3 cautions for the same offence, for example this year it took until the 3rd caution for chicken wing tackles for Bailey to get fined £300, which is how it should work but you also look at his record over the last two years and you will see 11 out of 23 citings are for niggling in the tackle, this shows they are ignoring the problem with Bailey.

I wouldn't agree, for that exact reason.

If you have had a caution for a grapple, raised knees and then a high tackle, then that should be enough to punish somebody. There would need to be clear guidance, but to see so many official cautions ignored is frustrating.

[MrPosh]

No, this would be for cautions only, not where they have said there was no issue.

They often put that there was a high tackle, but penalty and caution is sufficient. This caution is supposed to count against players in future disciplinaries, but we have seen players with a handful of cautions and no bans.

Maybe we need a system where after three cautions in a year you are called up ot given an automatic ban.

Sorry, misunderstood. In that case, absolutely agree - two cautions for the same thing should be sufficient though and an automatic minimum further game for being found guilty of the same thing.

[nadera78]

Hmm, not sure about that tbh. Bailey was not looking at Radford when Radford punched him, so there is an argument that this was a blind-side cheap shot (although I certainly wouldn't say that to Radford!).

When Bailey elbowed Radford in the head he must have known there was a strong chance Radford would retaliate. If he then took his eyes off him then he's an idiot.

[Dave T]

When Bailey elbowed Radford in the head he must have known there was a strong chance Radford would retaliate. If he then took his eyes off him then he's an idiot.

Nah, not having that at all. Players use their arms and legs to get players off them all the time (I'm not a big fan tbh - but it happens) and players very very rarely retaliate.

The fact is that Radford attacked a player that was on the ground and not looking. Whether we think it is justified based on Bailey's record is not the issue, had Bailey done the same, it would have been one described as a 'typical Bailey cheap shot'.

[Roy Boy]

had Bailey done the same, it would have been one described as a 'typical Bailey cheap shot'.

No - it would have been a miracle!

[dkw]

Nah, not having that at all. Players use their arms and legs to get players off them all the time (I'm not a big fan tbh - but it happens) and players very very rarely retaliate.

The fact is that Radford attacked a player that was on the ground and not looking. Whether we think it is justified based on Bailey's record is not the issue, had Bailey done the same, it would have been one described as a 'typical Bailey cheap shot'.

I dont think its justified because of Baileys record, I think its justified because of Bailey elbowing Radford 3 times in the head.

[nadera78]

I dont think its justified because of Baileys record, I think its justified because of Bailey elbowing Radford 3 times in the head.

What he said.

[Allan Marsden]

The whole saga was a farce. The RFL look stupid from start to finish. Time for Cummings to go.

You can be sent off for intent Dave T and this is the second successive match Bailey has attempted to headbut an opposition player.

[motorface]

Rugby league is a hard man's game, the players can take it, we all love a bit of biff don't we?

[Allan Marsden]

Yes we do and nobody has ever been seriously injured from a punch up IIRC. Moreover, 20 secs of bring back the biff would sort a numpty like Bailey out. Imagin Bailey v Boyd, Sorensen or Tamati

[motorface]

I don't think he'd be doing much winding up with those players around!! The Widnes pack from the late eighties must go down as one of the most formidable packs there's ever been in English RL.

[Dave T]

You can be sent off for intent Dave T and this is the second successive match Bailey has attempted to headbut an opposition player.

Any specific examples of somebody gettng sent off for throwing a punch and missing?