Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

when are are they able to play again


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 toffee

toffee
  • Coach
  • 242 posts

Posted 09 April 2014 - 11:21 AM

Is it me does anyone understand the difference between what worrincey did to what campbell did ? I cant get how one gets 6 months and campbell gets 9 months. Does anyone know when their bans ends . Also does this mean faal will be aviable soon .

#2 distantdog

distantdog
  • Coach
  • 2,780 posts

Posted 09 April 2014 - 12:00 PM

I think for Faal it is mid June, four months after the initial announcement on Feb. 14th. For JC, 2 months later. Just my rough working out mind so not definitive.

#3 ernieone

ernieone
  • Coach
  • 2,498 posts

Posted 09 April 2014 - 12:04 PM

RL are taking the micky, the only difference with Johnny is that he can start training with the team earlier to prepare for next season.
Faal should be back in training in a couple of months.

"Batley Bulldogs, Championship final 2013" 

"The Great Escape 2014"

2015 ?




1950s Gallant Youth, 2000 Bulldog


#4 distantdog

distantdog
  • Coach
  • 2,780 posts

Posted 09 April 2014 - 01:42 PM

RL are taking the micky, the only difference with Johnny is that he can start training with the team earlier to prepare for next season.Faal should be back in training in a couple of months.


I don't think they are. At least he will be prepared for next season unlike before the reduction. The RFL did not have to reduce the ban of course and ultimately only AF and JC are responsible for the bans, no matter how long.

#5 silverback

silverback
  • Coach
  • 1,008 posts

Posted 09 April 2014 - 05:48 PM

I don't think they are. At least he will be prepared for next season unlike before the reduction. The RFL did not have to reduce the ban of course and ultimately only AF and JC are responsible for the bans, no matter how long.

 you make that sound like they got off lightly DD. i know they were daft but the bans are crazy. i could understand if it if they backed us to lose and then played rubbish. but they backed their team to win biggest game in over 50 years TO WIN. plenty more bet on batley but used their mam or dad to stick bets on. the  cas player who nutted chandler in the tackle while on the floor and then again while the lad played the ball got nothing even thou touchie had seen it and gone on the the pitch. if he were on report it would a been 2 match's.i know have banged on about these two but for jc to miss a full season for a flutter is mental and a massive loss to batley too with his workrate and yards made ever game. i know we read about the rfl and this undercover elite investigation team doing all the work on this betting lark. what next a sensor on players to make sure they only drink a gallon when out unwinding,maybe they should check on why we have grounds with no seating at all for fans outside, no disabled area at all,old portacabins for away teams,stewards who swear and throw kids back into crowd for getting exited for their team winning a semi,ask the rfl what their doing about the fans screaming and running away from the front seats at a game this past week or so as a RAT decided to go for a walk at half time.plenty a things they should be doing that are important to the fans of our great game,just hope jc is still around for next season otherwise its a loss to batley and the game too.



#6 stevieb

stevieb
  • Coach
  • 229 posts

Posted 09 April 2014 - 06:26 PM

Realy well said Silver

#7 Lone Drinker

Lone Drinker
  • Coach
  • 270 posts

Posted 09 April 2014 - 06:31 PM

+1 silverback

#8 distantdog

distantdog
  • Coach
  • 2,780 posts

Posted 09 April 2014 - 07:56 PM

 you make that sound like they got off lightly DD. i know they were daft but the bans are crazy. i could understand if it if they backed us to lose and then played rubbish. but they backed their team to win biggest game in over 50 years TO WIN. plenty more bet on batley but used their mam or dad to stick bets on. the  cas player who nutted chandler in the tackle while on the floor and then again while the lad played the ball got nothing even thou touchie had seen it and gone on the the pitch. if he were on report it would a been 2 match's.i know have banged on about these two but for jc to miss a full season for a flutter is mental and a massive loss to batley too with his workrate and yards made ever game. i know we read about the rfl and this undercover elite investigation team doing all the work on this betting lark. what next a sensor on players to make sure they only drink a gallon when out unwinding,maybe they should check on why we have grounds with no seating at all for fans outside, no disabled area at all,old portacabins for away teams,stewards who swear and throw kids back into crowd for getting exited for their team winning a semi,ask the rfl what their doing about the fans screaming and running away from the front seats at a game this past week or so as a RAT decided to go for a walk at half time.plenty a things they should be doing that are important to the fans of our great game,just hope jc is still around for next season otherwise its a loss to batley and the game too.

On the contrary, I believe they received a huge ban that harmed them, their careers and the club. I was exceptionally angry at the time, and believed, and still do, that their bans destabilized the club and left us ridiculously short of players. However, there were rules already in place, which they broke and were punished for. It was stated at the time that their activities did not involve any form of match fixing, but that statement alone suggests why their punishments were so severe. It is a small step from what they did to beginning to influence the outcome of matches for gain.

 

The link to what the Castleford player did is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. 



#9 M Hopkins

M Hopkins
  • Moderator
  • 698 posts

Posted 09 April 2014 - 09:20 PM

So what you're saying is that you feel the punishment was severe but fair?

To be honest I don't think that backing yourself should be a crime. A full seasons ban is ridiculous. Superleague players have bet against their team and got 3 months. That is much worse in my opinion.

#10 silverback

silverback
  • Coach
  • 1,008 posts

Posted 09 April 2014 - 09:32 PM

On the contrary, I believe they received a huge ban that harmed them, their careers and the club. I was exceptionally angry at the time, and believed, and still do, that their bans destabilized the club and left us ridiculously short of players. However, there were rules already in place, which they broke and were punished for. It was stated at the time that their activities did not involve any form of match fixing, but that statement alone suggests why their punishments were so severe. It is a small step from what they did to beginning to influence the outcome of matches for gain.

 

The link to what the Castleford player did is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. 

 i think the fact we dident line a couple a players up just incase was wrong like you say, but why is every offence on the pitch judged at the time then given the banned time as its set out for the grade. am sure kevin must have had some idea of what to expect from the rfl so was he led with wrong information. if it were set out at say  8 or even 10 games for gambling that would be ample but a season out dont wash.  and as far as the cas game double headbutt its just as i have said before a player knows if he thumps/nutts someone hes out for 4 games at best if ref as the jewels to do something at the time. only opinions and everyone as one but rules should be set in stone not 6 months for one bet and 12 for another,??dident a barrow player get 18 moths a while back, am sure the powers that be will no doubt take control but theres far more things to do in our game.



#11 distantdog

distantdog
  • Coach
  • 2,780 posts

Posted 09 April 2014 - 09:44 PM

So what you're saying is that you feel the punishment was severe but fair?

To be honest I don't think that backing yourself should be a crime. A full seasons ban is ridiculous. Superleague players have bet against their team and got 3 months. That is much worse in my opinion.


I didn't say that. But l believe only two people are responsible for the bans and they are JC & AF. If they hadn't bet they would still be playing. The rules are there whether they, you or l think it's fair or not. Personally l do not feel like giving them any sympathy as l believe they are partly responsible for the unsettled state of affairs we find our club to be in. Comparing their misdemeanor to others is pointless and irrelevant.

#12 nedryan

nedryan
  • Players
  • 16 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 06:17 AM

Totally agree DD- they were fully aware of the risks and niw have to take the consequences.

#13 M Hopkins

M Hopkins
  • Moderator
  • 698 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 06:27 AM

It is completely relevant. And I am not saying that these players shouldn't be punished. They broke the rules and should be punished accordingly. All I am saying is for what they did a 5 to 10 game ban would have been plenty. After all you only get a 5 game ban for driving another player head first into the ground. The offence that could harm/seriously injure a player carries much less of a penalty.

#14 distantdog

distantdog
  • Coach
  • 2,780 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 06:52 AM

It is completely relevant. And I am not saying that these players shouldn't be punished. They broke the rules and should be punished accordingly. All I am saying is for what they did a 5 to 10 game ban would have been plenty. After all you only get a 5 game ban for driving another player head first into the ground. The offence that could harm/seriously injure a player carries much less of a penalty.


In your opinion, not mine so l suppose we will agree to disagree. Betting on matches is a premeditated act which could lead to corruption and the manipulation of results by those taking part. This brings the whole game into disrepute. That is why this offence carried such a high penalty.
Clearly dangerous tackles should be punished and punished accordingly but are part of a different framework.

#15 silverback

silverback
  • Coach
  • 1,008 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 09:56 AM

In your opinion, not mine so l suppose we will agree to disagree. Betting on matches is a premeditated act which could lead to corruption and the manipulation of results by those taking part. This brings the whole game into disrepute. That is why this offence carried such a high penalty.
Clearly dangerous tackles should be punished and punished accordingly but are part of a different framework.

 am sorry DD but how is sticking a tenner on yerself to win going to corrupt or manipulate the final score and result.  so millions bet on the grand national corrupted the result. i doubt they could have played any harder/better in the final, and am sure jc made first score. if a chunk of the team bet to LOSE and played rubbish then all well and good i wouldent have wanted them to play ever again for batley, its nothing new having a flutter but these two were only guilty of been fools by not letting a mate stick the bet on so came up against the elite rfl  undercover investigation squad. will it happen again.you bet yers.



#16 distantdog

distantdog
  • Coach
  • 2,780 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 11:02 AM

No need to apologise and none of those millions who bet on the National actually take part so irrelevant. I guess as before we have to disagree.

#17 cally

cally
  • Players
  • 72 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 12:46 PM

In your opinion, not mine so l suppose we will agree to disagree. Betting on matches is a premeditated act which could lead to corruption and the manipulation of results by those taking part. This brings the whole game into disrepute. That is why this offence carried such a high penalty.
Clearly dangerous tackles should be punished and punished accordingly but are part of a different framework.

 it would need a damn sight more than two players to manipulate a result in my opinion these bans woulldnt have been as long if it were one of the high profile super league teams involved.



#18 ernieone

ernieone
  • Coach
  • 2,498 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 07:21 PM

The worst offence I have seen on a Rugby field Craig Miles thuggery on Dean Lawford got a six months Ban, putting a bet on a match gets 12 months (9 months after appeal)

"Batley Bulldogs, Championship final 2013" 

"The Great Escape 2014"

2015 ?




1950s Gallant Youth, 2000 Bulldog


#19 fredm

fredm
  • Coach
  • 1,555 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 08:11 PM

The problem is when does the actions of placing a bet on a match for your team to win escalate into placing one for your team to lose? The RFL (and football) have to stamp down on all participants betting on matches to eradicate any possibility of corruption within the sport.
Also both JC and AF, I believe, used inside knowledge that if a penalty was awarded to Batley in the Sheffield half of the field at whatever time in the match, then Moore would take a kick at goal. How many persons standing on the terraces were aware of that?

#20 Chairman LMAO

Chairman LMAO
  • Coach
  • 3,958 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 08:15 PM

Based on the way we played through the play-offs I think we all knew that!!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users