Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Radford Wins Appeal


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 westhuller

westhuller
  • Coach
  • 3,029 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 05:09 PM

Lee Radford has won his appeal againt his one match suspension biggrin.gif
here
Cannot wait for the game now laugh.gif

#2 Old Frightful

Old Frightful
  • Coach
  • 12,993 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 05:19 PM

I always had my faith in the RFL Disciplinary panel, all good men, honest and true.

What say you 3owls?

          NO BUTS IT'S GOT TO BE BUTTER......                                 Z1N2MybzplQR6XBrwB9egniMH8xqYQ5s.jpg                                                                                                                     


#3 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,229 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 05:20 PM

Common sense has prevailed.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#4 murbus

murbus
  • Coach
  • 110 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 05:34 PM

From the website:

An RFL Appeals Tribunal has lifted the one-match suspension handed down to Lee Radford following the Hull FC forwards dismissal for repeatedly punching Ryan Bailey of Leeds Rhinos in last Saturdays Engage Super League Round 27 fixture at KC Stadium.

However the tribunal upheld the guilty verdict and ruled that that the 300 fine handed down by the RFL Disciplinary Committee on Tuesday night should stand.

In giving their decision, the tribunal accepted that only one of the punches thrown by Radford had made contact and that the player had been provoked by Bailey. The panel also took into consideration the fact that the dismissal was Radfords first red card in 15 seasons as a Rugby League professional.

But did they not know this when they gave him a one match ban!!!!

The RFL are certainly in a world of there own!

#5 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,578 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 05:36 PM

Can we appeal and get Bailey banned? It would be worth 300 quid.

rldfsignature.jpg


#6 my missus

my missus
  • Coach
  • 4,837 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 05:36 PM

what a pile of ######, one rule for one and lets make up something for another, the rugby league is pathetic.

What does it mean
This tearjerking scene
Beamed into my home
That it moves me so much
Why all the fuss
It's only two humans being.


#7 Ullman

Ullman
  • Coach
  • 7,530 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 05:43 PM

QUOTE (murbus @ Sep 8 2010, 06:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
From the website:

An RFL Appeals Tribunal has lifted the one-match suspension handed down to Lee Radford following the Hull FC forwards dismissal for repeatedly punching Ryan Bailey of Leeds Rhinos in last Saturdays Engage Super League Round 27 fixture at KC Stadium.

However the tribunal upheld the guilty verdict and ruled that that the 300 fine handed down by the RFL Disciplinary Committee on Tuesday night should stand.

In giving their decision, the tribunal accepted that only one of the punches thrown by Radford had made contact and that the player had been provoked by Bailey. The panel also took into consideration the fact that the dismissal was Radfords first red card in 15 seasons as a Rugby League professional.

But did they not know this when they gave him a one match ban!!!!

The RFL are certainly in a world of there own!

On the face of it seems strange, given, as you say, that they were already aware of the mitigating factors.

Perhaps the appeal is heard by a different panel.

"I own up. I am a serial risk taker. I live in a flood zone, cycle without a helmet, drink alcohol and on Sunday I had bacon for breakfast."


#8 Ullman

Ullman
  • Coach
  • 7,530 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 05:43 PM

QUOTE (Padge @ Sep 8 2010, 06:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Common sense has prevailed.

Indeed so.

"I own up. I am a serial risk taker. I live in a flood zone, cycle without a helmet, drink alcohol and on Sunday I had bacon for breakfast."


#9 Ullman

Ullman
  • Coach
  • 7,530 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 06:03 PM

QUOTE (Old Frightful @ Sep 8 2010, 06:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I always had my faith in the RFL Disciplinary panel, all good men, honest and true.

What say you 3owls?

That due process has been followed meticulously and that the outcome is a fair one?

"I own up. I am a serial risk taker. I live in a flood zone, cycle without a helmet, drink alcohol and on Sunday I had bacon for breakfast."


#10 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,100 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 06:04 PM

QUOTE (Ullman @ Sep 8 2010, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
On the face of it seems strange, given, as you say, that they were already aware of the mitigating factors.

Perhaps the appeal is heard by a different panel.

I think that is the case.

It will be interesting to read the notes when they are published, but based on the fact that he was sent off after only 9 minutes then in effect he and his team were punished for one game already, and that is often seen as enough punishment, maybe the 2nd panel went with that view.

#11 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,100 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 06:07 PM

Here are some of the notes from the initial ban hearing:

The panel have taken a great deal of time to come to the decision. You have been given credit for your long unblemished record in the game and the fact that you have pleaded guilty. In our view however this was a serious matter, virtually an assault by punching a player four times to the head who was on the ground, and although your opponent was allowed to continue with the game he did sustain a blood injury.

Sounds like it was touch and go, and the comments almost invite an appeal.

#12 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,578 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 06:13 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Sep 8 2010, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Here are some of the notes from the initial ban hearing:

The panel have taken a great deal of time to come to the decision. You have been given credit for your long unblemished record in the game and the fact that you have pleaded guilty. In our view however this was a serious matter, virtually an assault by punching a player four times to the head who was on the ground, and although your opponent was allowed to continue with the game he did sustain a blood injury.

Sounds like it was touch and go, and the comments almost invite an appeal.



I hope these people never judge a boxing match

rldfsignature.jpg


#13 tim2

tim2
  • Coach
  • 8,343 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 06:15 PM

This doesn't make sense. If Radford was provoked by Bailey, how come Bailey had no case to answer for the contact with the elbow? It was either accidental or it wasn't.

If it was accidental then Radford was out of order and should be banned (although he missed nearly a whole game anyway). If not, Bailey should be up on a charge.

Still, holding 2 contradictory views at once is quite common in RL!!
North Derbyshire Chargers - join the stampede

Marathon in 2015 - the hard work starts now

#14 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,100 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 06:18 PM

QUOTE (tim2 @ Sep 8 2010, 07:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This doesn't make sense. If Radford was provoked by Bailey, how come Bailey had no case to answer for the contact with the elbow? It was either accidental or it wasn't.

If it was accidental then Radford was out of order and should be banned (although he missed nearly a whole game anyway). If not, Bailey should be up on a charge.

Still, holding 2 contradictory views at once is quite common in RL!!

That doesn't necessarily make sense. Just because he was provoked doesn't mean that the provocation deserved a ban. They didn't decide to call him up, so they thought it wasn't too serious.


#15 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,922 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 06:20 PM

QUOTE (deluded pom? @ Sep 8 2010, 07:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I hope these people never judge a boxing match

Well these are the same people that decided Bailey had hit Radford with a forearm, rather than repeatedly with an elbow!
Posted Image

#16 Old Frightful

Old Frightful
  • Coach
  • 12,993 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 06:27 PM

QUOTE (Ullman @ Sep 8 2010, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Perhaps the appeal is heard by a different panel.

Indeed it was. Here they are....



This may of course be lost on some who haven't followed this forum recently....

          NO BUTS IT'S GOT TO BE BUTTER......                                 Z1N2MybzplQR6XBrwB9egniMH8xqYQ5s.jpg                                                                                                                     


#17 my missus

my missus
  • Coach
  • 4,837 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 08:01 PM

it also seems using the elbow is ok these days as did wellens on a prone defenseless player in the cas game.

What does it mean
This tearjerking scene
Beamed into my home
That it moves me so much
Why all the fuss
It's only two humans being.


#18 HappyDave

HappyDave
  • Coach
  • 3,236 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 08:20 PM

QUOTE (deluded pom? @ Sep 8 2010, 06:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Can we appeal and get Bailey banned? It would be worth 300 quid.


Sound good to me. How much do we have to put in? 5 each addressed to Mr L Radford? biggrin.gif
"I've never seen a woman with hairy ears... And I've been to St Helens" - John Bishop

#19 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,314 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 09:56 PM

Good grief! It was only a punch to his head. Its not as if it was anywhere important or useful to him!

#20 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 09:59 PM

The level of provocation Radford faced was nothing compared to that which Fielden was subjected to by Mason. Bailey wound Radford up within the rules of the game. Fielden was not dismissed, but Wigan still lost the game.
Ian Smith was entirely correct to send Radford off for an attack at the head of a player. Fielden was banned for one match for punching an opponent. He only connected properly once, on Mason's chin. The rescinding of this one match ban handed down to Radford brings the integrity of the disciplinary panel and it's procedures into serious doubt.