Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Disciplinary Leigh East Last Night


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#21 del capo

del capo
  • Coach
  • 761 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 06:22 PM

The Rfl are looking into Danny's case , I don't think they agree with it either


Maybe the NCL are just allowing Kilshaw to have a hearing before their Appeal Committee ( the RFL ) ?

And maybe this time he / his club will take advantage of the opportunity to appear and make a case ?

If indeed he makes an application to appeal........

Don't make assumptions about the RFL attitude Mr Chairman. If it get's that far it will simply be a re-hearing..

The NCL have I understand in this particular case no problems with their processes ( nor their decision for that matter ).......

#22 terryg

terryg
  • Coach
  • 572 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 06:45 PM

At least we have the facility of actual evidence in a FULL UNEDITED video. don't forget that the slow mo replay you have all seen is classed as edited and can not be used as evidence.
We all accept at East that Kilsh should have been given a 3 to 6 week ban. And as East have three second team games left the ban should be for NCL games only. Even if you don't appear for an appeal can the Committee impose a 12 month ban for a no show. I would think the max for the offence would be appropriate.
Watch the video back and tell me that the impact of the legal tackle a split second following the hit around the neck didn't bring on the fit. In 99.9% of occasions of the same incident occurring there wouldn't have been any physical issues encountered.
At East we are guilty of being the only team in the NCL who will submit their match DVD's for assessment.

How many NCL Prem matches will be online next season?

Edited by terryg, 25 October 2012 - 06:47 PM.


#23 dinosore

dinosore
  • Coach
  • 2,157 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:26 PM

At least we have the facility of actual evidence in a FULL UNEDITED video. don't forget that the slow mo replay you have all seen is classed as edited and can not be used as evidence.
We all accept at East that Kilsh should have been given a 3 to 6 week ban. And as East have three second team games left the ban should be for NCL games only. Even if you don't appear for an appeal can the Committee impose a 12 month ban for a no show. I would think the max for the offence would be appropriate.
Watch the video back and tell me that the impact of the legal tackle a split second following the hit around the neck didn't bring on the fit. In 99.9% of occasions of the same incident occurring there wouldn't have been any physical issues encountered.
At East we are guilty of being the only team in the NCL who will submit their match DVD's for assessment.

How many NCL Prem matches will be online next season?

Terry your dvd is NOT the only one the committee has seen, as St.Pats secretary i was asked by the ncl to send a full unedited match dvd this was filmed by a friend of one of our players who films games for analysis for Wigan rlfc, i did not watch this before i sent it in so have no idea what view of the incident is shown, but they have received a full unedited dvd.

#24 Back In The Good Old Days

Back In The Good Old Days
  • Coach
  • 140 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:54 PM

Is a double relegation on the cards for Leigh East? I'd certainly hope not, but that's one rumour that I've heard.

It really would set a precedent, and it could cause havock with the leagues, as Crosfields, Heworth and Featherstone Lions have all blobbed on fixtures this time. Could be massive changes in Division 2.



#25 Back In The Good Old Days

Back In The Good Old Days
  • Coach
  • 140 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:00 PM

Even on appeal he may not get his ban reduced and may even get it increased!!!

All good players get targetted at all levels but kilshshaws record isnt un blemished is it and i am led to believe this was also taken into consideration.

Leigh east by failing to send representation to the meeting certainly havnt helped the club or the player and those responsible should hold their hands up and cop the blame rather than keep whinging about how hard done by they are.

I honestly cant see how they can complain about both current matters.

#26 terryg

terryg
  • Coach
  • 572 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:04 PM

Terry your dvd is NOT the only one the committee has seen, as St.Pats secretary i was asked by the ncl to send a full unedited match dvd this was filmed by a friend of one of our players who films games for analysis for Wigan rlfc, i did not watch this before i sent it in so have no idea what view of the incident is shown, but they have received a full unedited dvd.

No one mentioned it after the game and your coaches asked could I drop off a copy, which I always do if requested.
I'm sure many would like to see the version used to give a 12 month ban Bernard.

#27 mr chairman

mr chairman
  • Coach
  • 1,653 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:49 PM

Even on appeal he may not get his ban reduced and may even get it increased!!!

All good players get targetted at all levels but kilshshaws record isnt un blemished is it and i am led to believe this was also taken into consideration.

Leigh east by failing to send representation to the meeting certainly havnt helped the club or the player and those responsible should hold their hands up and cop the blame rather than keep whinging about how hard done by they are.

I honestly cant see how they can complain about both current matters.


The only person whinging is me and I have nothing to do with the club . How many times have people said that Danny deserved a red card and a heavy ban . Everyone on here is saying it . Look on twitter and look at the support he is getting from many super league players . Tell me do you think he deserves 12 months for that and his past record this season is two other sendings off , not sure of the bans he got from them . Back in the good old days he would not have been sent off lol

#28 terryg

terryg
  • Coach
  • 572 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:54 PM

Even on appeal he may not get his ban reduced and may even get it increased!!!

All good players get targetted at all levels but kilshshaws record isnt un blemished is it and i am led to believe this was also taken into consideration.

Leigh east by failing to send representation to the meeting certainly havnt helped the club or the player and those responsible should hold their hands up and cop the blame rather than keep whinging about how hard done by they are.

I honestly cant see how they can complain about both current matters.

Are you saying that if a club doesn't send representation for a high tackle offence then the ban is 12 months minimum?
As I have already stated we accept a ban within the league guidelines, hence no need to show up and waste the committees time.
What would you do if a 12month ban was issued for a high tackle?

Look at what happens in the kick and clap game http://uk.eurosport....30948--spt.html
Video


Which is worse???????????????

#29 maxwel

maxwel
  • Coach
  • 1,204 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:00 PM

Rugby Union
Its nice to be important, but never forget its important to be nice!!!

#30 terryg

terryg
  • Coach
  • 572 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:04 PM

Rugby Union

Yes but in general they penalise worse than league. This would have got eight games max in NCL

#31 Back In The Good Old Days

Back In The Good Old Days
  • Coach
  • 140 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:26 PM

What i am stating is that by having no representation at the discilinary meeting you cannot plead your case as such.

I for one would have ensured that the player attended himself along with the coach to give at least their version of events.

I agree on face value the ban seems harsh but i have always found the ncl to be fair and reasonable in the past with disciplinary matters.

I think your statement about wasting the committees time has now turned round and bit you squarely on the bum!

As mentioned earlier in the thread you aint helping yourseleves of late.

#32 Back In The Good Old Days

Back In The Good Old Days
  • Coach
  • 140 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:31 PM

Back in the good old days peoples jaws got broken on regular basis due to foul play do we want to see a return of such incidents?

I for one do not give me a good disciplined game anytime

#33 pluto

pluto
  • Players
  • 75 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:43 PM

Back in the good old days peoples jaws got broken on regular basis due to foul play do we want to see a return of such incidents?

I for one do not give me a good disciplined game anytime


Plenty of tackles worse this season and every season get very short bans, if Leigh East appeared or not the offence does'nt suddenly become ten times worse, these people are supposed to know the game so the decision makes no sense. 'Back in the day' you will have seen worse plenty of times this season, but you won't admit it, because your that sort of person.

#34 del capo

del capo
  • Coach
  • 761 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:49 PM

The NCL would seem to have given Kilshaw / Leigh East an opportunity to appeal .........

So the evidence / arguments may now be before a different forum....

Let's see what may happen elsewhere.............

#35 Back In The Good Old Days

Back In The Good Old Days
  • Coach
  • 140 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:15 AM

Pluto

Seeing as you dont even know me you have made a pretty stupid assumption about my character.
I aint seen the incident but if the ncl disciplinary panel have then they have based thier punishment on that.
Before making assumptions about my character please read my full posting with regards to leigh east not helping their cause or that of the player by not having the decency to turn up for the hearing.
Common courtesy would be that you attend or do leigh east feel that they are above that.

#36 barbara henderson

barbara henderson
  • Coach
  • 346 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:45 AM

The NCL would seem to have given Kilshaw / Leigh East an opportunity to appeal .........

So the evidence / arguments may now be before a different forum....

Let's see what may happen elsewhere.............

If this is correct, I take it rule OP1.31 stating that a Club can appeal `provided that the player or official made representation either in person or by letter at the original hearing' has been overlooked on this occasion. :rolleyes:

#37 TaxiEgg

TaxiEgg
  • Coach
  • 2,666 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:45 AM

Peter we all agree that Leigh East let the player down in not appearing at the original hearing very bad call on the club . What almost 100% of people who post on here and indeed Joe Public( as this incident has provoked a lot of debate in gods town), think that the 12 month ban is an unsafe decision.
Now lets look at the decision makers here having watched the incident at full speed how did the players react , in almost every time a bad tackle has occurred the players would sort this out by having a crack at the offender ,not one St Pats player does that, the players are the best judges sometimes. Like Terry says look at the second " legal" tackler he puts in a good hit and drives the player into the floor with help from Kilsh,s arm.

Now you have been involved in the game a long time does that incident along with and previous sending offs warrant in effect a possible 40 match ban ?
The highest penalty for a grade F offence is 8 + so you can see why there is so much outcry from the NCLs decision.

I dont suscribe to going back to the " good old days " when thugs were allowed to bully their way through games thats a bloody stupid statement although tongue in cheek.

What the game needs is strong fair sentancing for the good of the sport this original decision does not tick the box, if the case is to be looked at then I for one think thats right for the sport . And also Leigh East need to look at themselves in the way they have conducted themselves not only in this case but also the Skirlaugh debacle in both not travelling and when the game was actually played .

#38 mr chairman

mr chairman
  • Coach
  • 1,653 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:16 AM

Best post yet mick , Leigh east have made a few poor decisions at committee level this season , in my opinion . One being kilsh , 2nd one skirlaugh. And 3rd one the "we our going back to winter" .the people who made those decisions should be brought to book . Yes Leigh east are guilty on all counts and will except their punishment . But the players on all counts will be the ones who suffer . If Leigh east and kilsh get the same as all others in the past who have committed the same then I for one will be happy . I'm not saying that east are innocent but the punishment must fit the crime . The Killshaw incident didn't and we await the skirlaugh fiasco outcome . The winter decision was sorted at club level with the players overriding that stupid decision

#39 Cutsyke Raiders

Cutsyke Raiders
  • Coach
  • 404 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:49 AM

If this is correct, I take it rule OP1.31 stating that a Club can appeal `provided that the player or official made representation either in person or by letter at the original hearing' has been overlooked on this occasion. :rolleyes:

NCL Constitution

17.1 The League’s Management Committee may, should it so desire, be empowered to deal with any matter not provided for in the Constitution.



#40 barbara henderson

barbara henderson
  • Coach
  • 346 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:55 AM

NCL Constitution


17.1 The League’s Management Committee may, should it so desire, be empowered to deal with any matter not provided for in the Constitution.


No point in rules then really :unsure:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users