• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good
  1. Lifetime Ban or Rehabilitation

    Dave T, to your three points: 1. The discussion was also about the differences between how players and fans are treated by clubs. That is what I have been addressing. 2. I'm fairly certain that is what I said. But there is more than one way a club can discipline its players for the same thing (internal suspensions, requirement to go on courses/rehab) that it doesn't have when it comes to fans. 3. Really? Thankfully, I've never been involved in any so I don't have first hand knowledge. But whenever there is crowd trouble, it is lifetime bans that are talked about. Happy to stand corrected though. What is the appropriate sanction? It's a tough one. As I think we have agreed, the only thing clubs can do is ban people from the ground, so that is pretty fixed. How long should it be for? In my opinion the remainder of the current season as a minimum for a first offence.
  2. Lifetime Ban or Rehabilitation

    No, you can't force players to change their behaviour, but there are steps that can be taken between employer and employee to address issues (disciplinary action etc.) to correct them that just don't exist between a club and its fans. The only way clubs can stop such behaviour from fans is through stadium bans. What other deterrent is there other than denying the product? But where do you draw the line? A season ban for the first offence? And then what about crowd disturbances? Should the people involved in those also get a second chance? At the end of the day, people are well aware that if they behave in certain ways, they will no longer be allowed into games. It is for the clubs to decide what the sanctions are. If fans are not willing to accept those terms, they are welcome to find other ways of watching the game.
  3. Lifetime Ban or Rehabilitation

    Like I said, it is easier for a club to monitor and enforce rehabilitation and behaviour on a player than it is on a fan. If a player is guilty of such abuse, the club can take steps to correct that behaviour that is not limited to banning them for life. For example, the monitoring of social media posts from the player to ensure such things do not happen again. It is much harder for clubs to do the same for fans. How would a club force a fan to change their behaviour? The only way to do it is through bans, and if necessary lifetime bans. Nothing else is really enforceable by the club. Is it fair? Maybe not. But sometimes in life you have to balance fairness and practicality.
  4. Lifetime Ban or Rehabilitation

    I think the difference is that the clubs can have some control over the behaviour/rehab over players, whereas they have very little control over the fans once they leave the terraces. How would you police the rehab of a fan? Are you going to have club officers patrol social media, for example, to check up on those that have been banned? Lifetime bans are just easier to enforce.
  5. There's been a lot of talk lately about the structure potentially moving to 2x10. What do people think that will look like? We currently have 12 teams in Super League. Plus London, Toulouse and Toronto just outside. My gut feeling is at least Toronto would be in the top 10, possibly Toulouse as well and even London. So that's potentially 5 teams that are currently in Super League being on the outside looking in. Who makes the cut?
  6. Can't wait for the fixture pile up later in the season!
  7. Pitch inspection at 10:30 in the morning. Looking at the weather right now in Wakefield, this could well be another weather casualty.
  8. Transfer Fees

    Although rare, transfer fees are sometimes used in America. "Cash considerations" were in vogue in the NBA last year.
  9. Liam Watts

    Not sure about this to be honest. He's a good player, but he's been sent off 4 times in a year. That's a ridiculous number of red cards. Great signing if we can keep him on the field. Still, Hardaker will have opened up a bit of cap space, so maybe it doesn't matter.
  10. Decent half of rugby that. Enjoying it.
  11. As always, the number of people who believe the refs are rubbish far outstrips the numbers applying to be refs. Odd that... I'll be honest, I only watched the second half. But from what I saw the officials did well. Hull had plenty of chances to win that game. They blew them. They lost. That said, I enjoyed what I saw. It was a good game.
  12. I don't think Warrington were arguing about Patton being sent more, more about whatever Jake Connor said to him on the way past.
  13. Didn't expect that result, but very happy with it! It's a stern warning for those that kick penalties early doors. Hull were well on top but kicked at goal rather than piling on the pressure. Kicking that penalty is exactly what Cas wanted then. Released the pressure and Cas worked their way into the game.
  14. Morgan Knowles.

    It must always be on a case by case basis. All high tackles are head high, but not all are the same. Scenario 1: A defender is running across and the attacker side steps him. The defender throws out an arm in a desperate attempt to stop them and hits the attacker high. There is no injury to the attacker. Scenario 2: A defender is runs forward square with the attacker. The defender clearly and blatantly swings his arms and hits the attacker forcefully in the side of the head. The attacker suffers a broken jaw. Both of these are high tackles. Suggesting they both warrant the same punishment is nonsense. The first case may be deemed as penalty sufficient. The second a lengthy ban. Step one in disciplinary should "What has happened and how did it happen". This determines whether or not there is a charge and what grade the charge should be. Step two - is the player guilty of the charge? Step three - the penalty. This is determined by the grading of the charge, and also any mitigating or aggravating factors. In mitigation, the player could cite his good previous record and/or shown genuine remorse for his actions. Aggravating factors could include a poor previous record, potential for injury and/or actual injury caused. Intent should not be a factor. After all, who would go into a disciplinary hearing and tell them that he intended to drop someone on their head (for example). Morgan Knowles has been saved by his previous record, and he's still very lucky. That tackle had the potential for serious injury and only good fortune prevented it. Will other tackles result in 4 match bans? Possibly. Some dangerous throws won't be as bad (more control going to ground, attacker landing on their back rather than head/neck) and will result in more lenient punishment. Some will be worse (landing directly on the head) and will be punished more severely. Add in mitigating/aggravating factors and the bans could vary a great deal. That doesn't mean the system and punishments aren't consistent, though.