Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Wiltshire Rhino

What should the referee have done?

What should he have done?   76 members have voted

  1. 1. Pick three - One for Radford, one for Bailey, and one for the penalty.

    • Radford red
      30
    • Radford yellow
      44
    • Radford nothing
      0
    • Bailey red
      17
    • Bailey yellow
      53
    • Bailey nothing
      5
    • Penalty - Hull
      32
    • Penalty - Leeds
      33

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

121 posts in this topic

I think the ref got it right. In most circumstances 2 yellows would have sufficed but I think the fact that Bailey wasn't fighting back and Radford looked like he had no desire to stop left the referee with no choice.

I'm not condoning Bailey for one second, and a fight is a fight but beating somebody up is bordering on assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baily sent off and Radford given a pay rise and keys to the city. If there is one bloke who deserves a beating it's that dirty b@stard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irrelevant on who was on the floor, it was a straight red

Disagree - we need a bit of biff in the game, ten minutes for both would've done to cool them off and then have them both sit out a game next week as necessary (see Fielden and Griffen).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both yellow, Ref should have seen the initial elbowing so penalty Hull.

Then Bailey taken outside and shot.Then Bailey suspended for previous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disagree - we need a bit of biff in the game, ten minutes for both would've done to cool them off and then have them both sit out a game next week as necessary (see Fielden and Griffen).

A bit of biff is one person on the floor getting repeatedly punched?

Fielden and Griffin was air punching, 10 mins to cool off

Radford was hitting a prone man and wasnt missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Radford was hitting a prone man and wasnt missing.

Think he missed with his first two then got him with the third, IIRC.

Also, Bailey was trying to fight back, once everybody was keeping the pair of them apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A bit of biff is one person on the floor getting repeatedly punched?

Fielden and Griffin was air punching, 10 mins to cool off

Radford was hitting a prone man and wasnt missing.

If that is the case then was Wellens on McGoldrick last night along the same lines - two forearms to the head of a player on the floor after McGoldrick had thrown a few elbows in the tackle? Only a penalty was the result of that exchange. Same happened with Joel Tomkins on Friday, he reacted to a Bradford player with a knee to the head - again only a penalty. In light on those two incidents I think Smith was disproportionate - Bailey arguably deserved some punches for the elbows to the head that started it all off - it wasn't Radford's fault that he turtled like a coward and then tried to play the hard man after other players waded in.

Fielden and Griffen got a match apiece for the fighting and only Fielden was binned (Mason was the other player).

Edited by giwildgo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A bit of biff is one person on the floor getting repeatedly punched?

Fielden and Griffin was air punching, 10 mins to cool off

Radford was hitting a prone man and wasnt missing.

Just can't image Jamie Peacock staying down on the floor in similar circumstances. Maybe Bailey stayed down because there wasn't anybody to hide behind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfft, actually just watched this. There was sod all in it. Radford looked like he was swatting flies off Bailey. I don't think he even connected. The cut could have come from Bailey's reaction or the original tackle. I reckon the ref only sent him because they were still carrying on afterwards. Although how Bailey didn't at least get the bin after Radford got sent is a mystery. Bailey was carrying on like a dick (whoda thunk it?) and was fully willing to go on with. So I'd go both should have been binned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the ref got it right. In most circumstances 2 yellows would have sufficed but I think the fact that Bailey wasn't fighting back and Radford looked like he had no desire to stop left the referee with no choice.

I'm not condoning Bailey for one second, and a fight is a fight but beating somebody up is bordering on assault.

if bailey wants to go round swinging the elbows and he caught radford what does expect to happen he caught him clean with 2 elbows both should have been yellow carded both of them and bailey got away with it again its a joke to super league. baileys been getting away with it for years just glad radford caught him then bailey chickened out like the wimp he is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that is the case then was Wellens on McGoldrick last night along the same lines - two forearms to the head of a player on the floor after McGoldrick had thrown a few elbows in the tackle? Only a penalty was the result of that exchange. Same happened with Joel Tomkins on Friday, he reacted to a Bradford player with a knee to the head - again only a penalty. In light on those two incidents I think Smith was disproportionate - Bailey arguably deserved some punches for the elbows to the head that started it all off - it wasn't Radford's fault that he turtled like a coward and then tried to play the hard man after other players waded in.

Fielden and Griffen got a match apiece for the fighting and only Fielden was binned (Mason was the other player).

I would say Smith was right and the refs in your instances were disproportionate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So im guessing some Leeds fans are more than happy having a moron like Bailey in their side, who`s job seems to be to just wind up opposition players. Hes a cheap shot merchant, a coward and nasty with it, if he was someone like Peacock who likes a battle or two but will do it face to face and doesnt feel the need to do it slyly and sneakily then I wouldnt have a problem with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the ref got it right. In most circumstances 2 yellows would have sufficed but I think the fact that Bailey wasn't fighting back and Radford looked like he had no desire to stop left the referee with no choice.

I'm not condoning Bailey for one second, and a fight is a fight but beating somebody up is bordering on assault.

Bailey could have fought back. He just cowered into a ball instead. Notice how easily he got up when Radford was pulled away, and how quick he was to react when he realised Radford was restrained. He attempted to fight back then. He retaliated then. Was he punished? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan Bailey represents the ugly part of the game, and players like him are the ones that put people off playing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's still there because of the salary cap.

Leeds would probably gladly replace him but have to balance it all out.

I, too wouldn't be upset if he moved on. As others have said, penalty machine who makes few metres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Penalty for Hull because Bailey's elbowing was the first offence, yellow card for Radford because he needed time to cool down. Had Bailey only been guilty of the elbowing (which in itself was dangerous enough) I would've accepted a yellow card as adequate punishment but since he threw the head butt too I think he should've been sent off. Smith got the cards the wrong way round in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was never a massive fan of Radford when he was at the Bulls, but I've seen a clip of yesterday and if ever a bloke deserved a few punches its Ryan Bailey. Good on Radford, I now like him! Looking forward to watching the Super league Show later.

Bailey is a cheap shot merchant. End of. Happy to get a man when he cant defend himself, but not interested when its remotely fair odds.

Davies was funny in the commentry in the Semi and Final of CC as he obviously dislikes Bailey as much as most fans (incl. Leeds fans it would seem).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Had to laugh at this that I received on Twitter:

Just about sums him up. :D

He said it live on air too, Griff, I stuck it in the match thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smith was right, no question. Radford walked because he threw cowardly punches at a man getting off the floor with a ball in his hands in no position to defend himself. The pseudo-hardman cost Hull the game and will be kicking himself when Hull bite the dust against Rovers next week while he sits on the touchline following his ban. You've just got to laugh at the pr**k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith was right, no question. Radford walked because he threw cowardly punches at a man getting off the floor with a ball in his hands in no position to defend himself. The pseudo-hardman cost Hull the game and will be kicking himself when Hull bite the dust against Rovers next week while he sits on the touchline following his ban. You've just got to laugh at the pr**k.

If there was no question, then why do more than half the people on this board think that Radford should have had a lesser punishment, and 9/10 think that Bailey should have had at least a yellow? And half also think that it should have even been Hull's penalty?

No question? Only if you're a blinkered Leeds fan that thinks they should be untouchable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there was no question, then why do more than half the people on this board think that Radford should have had a lesser punishment, and 9/10 think that Bailey should have had at least a yellow? And half also think that it should have even been Hull's penalty?

No question? Only if you're a blinkered Leeds fan that thinks they should be untouchable.

It doesn't really matter what 9/10 on here think because 9/10 are talking complete bollards. The problem is that Ryan Bailey evokes such strong opinions that people don't think logically and start talking complete guff. The only opinion that matters is that of the disciplinary board and i'm sure they will back me, the referee and logical thinkers by banning your pretend "rocky" for one, hopefully two games. That will mean next weeks game and the first one of next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017