Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Old Frightful

Today's RFL Disciplinary Hearing.

49 posts in this topic

Personally, once you have a certain number of cautions, I would like them to hand out bans for intent as opposed to whether he actually makes full contact. In the CC Final he was highlighted for dropping with his forearm in the last tackle of the game, and then this attempted headbutt. It should be highlighted that this kind of activity isn't welcome and he should get a token 1 match ban IMHO.

That's a difficult one. I agree with you up to a point, but aren't you effectively punishing a player who has been found not-guilty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a difficult one. I agree with you up to a point, but aren't you effectively punishing a player who has been found not-guilty?

No, this would be for cautions only, not where they have said there was no issue.

They often put that there was a high tackle, but penalty and caution is sufficient. This caution is supposed to count against players in future disciplinaries, but we have seen players with a handful of cautions and no bans.

Maybe we need a system where after three cautions in a year you are called up ot given an automatic ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, this would be for cautions only, not where they have said there was no issue.

They often put that there was a high tackle, but penalty and caution is sufficient. This caution is supposed to count against players in future disciplinaries, but we have seen players with a handful of cautions and no bans.

Maybe we need a system where after three cautions in a year you are called up ot given an automatic ban.

I would agree but it would have to be 3 cautions for the same offence, for example this year it took until the 3rd caution for chicken wing tackles for Bailey to get fined

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would agree but it would have to be 3 cautions for the same offence, for example this year it took until the 3rd caution for chicken wing tackles for Bailey to get fined

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, this would be for cautions only, not where they have said there was no issue.

They often put that there was a high tackle, but penalty and caution is sufficient. This caution is supposed to count against players in future disciplinaries, but we have seen players with a handful of cautions and no bans.

Maybe we need a system where after three cautions in a year you are called up ot given an automatic ban.

Sorry, misunderstood. In that case, absolutely agree - two cautions for the same thing should be sufficient though and an automatic minimum further game for being found guilty of the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, not sure about that tbh. Bailey was not looking at Radford when Radford punched him, so there is an argument that this was a blind-side cheap shot (although I certainly wouldn't say that to Radford!).

When Bailey elbowed Radford in the head he must have known there was a strong chance Radford would retaliate. If he then took his eyes off him then he's an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Bailey elbowed Radford in the head he must have known there was a strong chance Radford would retaliate. If he then took his eyes off him then he's an idiot.

Nah, not having that at all. Players use their arms and legs to get players off them all the time (I'm not a big fan tbh - but it happens) and players very very rarely retaliate.

The fact is that Radford attacked a player that was on the ground and not looking. Whether we think it is justified based on Bailey's record is not the issue, had Bailey done the same, it would have been one described as a 'typical Bailey cheap shot'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
had Bailey done the same, it would have been one described as a 'typical Bailey cheap shot'.

No - it would have been a miracle!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, not having that at all. Players use their arms and legs to get players off them all the time (I'm not a big fan tbh - but it happens) and players very very rarely retaliate.

The fact is that Radford attacked a player that was on the ground and not looking. Whether we think it is justified based on Bailey's record is not the issue, had Bailey done the same, it would have been one described as a 'typical Bailey cheap shot'.

I dont think its justified because of Baileys record, I think its justified because of Bailey elbowing Radford 3 times in the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont think its justified because of Baileys record, I think its justified because of Bailey elbowing Radford 3 times in the head.

What he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole saga was a farce. The RFL look stupid from start to finish. Time for Cummings to go.

You can be sent off for intent Dave T and this is the second successive match Bailey has attempted to headbut an opposition player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we do and nobody has ever been seriously injured from a punch up IIRC. Moreover, 20 secs of bring back the biff would sort a numpty like Bailey out. Imagin Bailey v Boyd, Sorensen or Tamati :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he'd be doing much winding up with those players around!! The Widnes pack from the late eighties must go down as one of the most formidable packs there's ever been in English RL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can be sent off for intent Dave T and this is the second successive match Bailey has attempted to headbut an opposition player.
Any specific examples of somebody gettng sent off for throwing a punch and missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole saga was a farce. The RFL look stupid from start to finish. Time for Cummings to go.

Why? The RFL has set up an independent disciplinary committee and has an appeals process that is legally correct and is accepted by the constituent clubs.

The Referee and TJ have seen an incident at the time and acted on what they saw - Bailey's contact with Radford is obviously up for debate even with the hindsight of video replay. Radford clearly punched Bailey several times, which is a red card offence. Not too much wrong with what happened on the field, hence what's it got to do with Stuart Cummings?

Obviously the second panel who reviewed tha appeal differed from the first panel. This is a consequence of the independent process and also happens in our law courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? The RFL has set up an independent disciplinary committee and has an appeals process that is legally correct and is accepted by the constituent clubs.

The Referee and TJ have seen an incident at the time and acted on what they saw - Bailey's contact with Radford is obviously up for debate even with the hindsight of video replay. Radford clearly punched Bailey several times, which is a red card offence. Not too much wrong with what happened on the field, hence what's it got to do with Stuart Cummings?

Obviously the second panel who reviewed tha appeal differed from the first panel. This is a consequence of the independent process and also happens in our law courts.

In fact Tim, what's it got to do with the Match Officials department at all once the game has finished and the report of the incident has been made. The average rugby league fan has no comprehension of the fact that the match review panel and then disciplinary panel has absolutely nothing to do wth the match officials department and just try to use this lack of understanding as a stick to beat the department with and in doing so show their own prejudices and maybe even stupidity.

Edited by sallywt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the need for the appeals process in its current guise. If all things are properly considered at the original hearing there should be no appeal.

If something is missed or comes to light afterward then fair enough, appeal.

It would stop initial sentences being too high just so they can be reduced by subsequent appeals....

Edited by maroonandgold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? The RFL has set up an independent disciplinary committee and has an appeals process that is legally correct and is accepted by the constituent clubs.

The Referee and TJ have seen an incident at the time and acted on what they saw - Bailey's contact with Radford is obviously up for debate even with the hindsight of video replay. Radford clearly punched Bailey several times, which is a red card offence. Not too much wrong with what happened on the field, hence what's it got to do with Stuart Cummings?

Obviously the second panel who reviewed tha appeal differed from the first panel. This is a consequence of the independent process and also happens in our law courts.

Read and learn ;)

Farce from Start

Firstly we had referees interpreting punching differently and having a major impact on the outcome of RL matches and the final placings of the League. Radford was sent off. Seemingly, this is the latest edict from Cummings. In the opinion of most fans, most neutral and many ex professional players, this was a bad decision and typical of the over reaction that characterises Ian Smith. However, if Smith was following instruction and it would be fair to assume he was (he is not the first referee to dismiss players for punching in recent weeks) then the blame lies with Cummings. That decision cost Hull a win IMO and impacted on the league placings of Hull and Leeds. The very same weekend, Paul Wellens was not sent off for an identical scenario by Ben Thaler. One was right and the other was wrong depending upon what the officials have been instructed by Cummings. Thaler's decision impacted upon Castleford and Crusaders greatly but also Saints and Wire. So we had a vital weekend of matches where referees were critical in determining outcomes with glaring inconsistency.

We now pay our referees a very good income. We were assured by Stuart Cummings that full time officials would equate to better officiating. These officials now have 100% time / focus / energy working as a collective group YET they are still inconsistent and worse than in previous seasons. The standard in 2010 has been awful. So on that basis the person in charge, Cummings needs to go.

A word on the farce for sending players off for punching. NO player IIRC has ever been hurt badly by a fight. Fans may say otherwise but they get excited by a bit of biff. Our sport is a physical contest of real strength nowhere more than in the front row. Here we had the first 10 minutes of a vital highly charged contest and such things happen. A sin bin for both players would have sufficed and been far better. IMAGINE the best RL spectacle, the State of Origin. Had Ian Smith made such a farcical decision in one of those game the Aussies would not have been throwing beer cans at him, they would have lynched him. In the NRL, officials are held genuinely accountable by the media (our is spineless) but also by the sport itself. In recent weeks 2 NRL match officials have been dropped and whatsmore one, Bill Harrigan came out and said I got it wrong, I need to pay the price. Robert Finch - Cummings in the NRL will come out and say the referee got it wrong. Such actions never happen here.

Ryan Bailey was not even warned for an attempted head but. Farcical given the present RFL stance.

The judiciary. Yes we have an appeal procedure and I am livid that my own club seems to operate a no appeal policy because IMO EVERY club must appeal from now on because the discrepancy was farcical.

People talk about the courts of law having the right of appeal but that normally requires new evidence does it not? Here we had a RFL panel watching / listening to a case and giving a decision. A fresh panel 24 hours later watching / listening to exactly the same case a giving a completely diffierent decision. Imagine if that happened in a Court of Law. It would not and there is an overiding expectation that the law of the land is consistently applied otherwise uproar would ensue. Yet in RL we celebrate INCONSISTENCY which IMO is a farce.

We have no media holding the game to account and many fans are blind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact Tim, what's it got to do with the Match Officials department at all once the game has finished and the report of the incident has been made. The average rugby league fan has no comprehension of the fact that the match review panel and then disciplinary panel has absolutely nothing to do wth the match officials department and just try to use this lack of understanding as a stick to beat the department with and in doing so show their own prejudices and maybe even stupidity.

You will find most understand that and IMO Match officials are not supported and the game is let down by a weak post match disciplinary procedure. No prejudice or stupidit here love ;) JK BTW :P There is a view that I think has some credence that because squads have no depth at the best of times that behind the scenes the word has been to go lightly with punishment so as to not weaken teams any more than they already are under a salary cap regime. Hence, no true backing for match officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read and learn ;)

Farce from Start

Firstly we had referees interpreting punching differently and having a major impact on the outcome of RL matches and the final placings of the League. Radford was sent off. Seemingly, this is the latest edict from Cummings. In the opinion of most fans, most neutral and many ex professional players, this was a bad decision and typical of the over reaction that characterises Ian Smith. However, if Smith was following instruction and it would be fair to assume he was (he is not the first referee to dismiss players for punching in recent weeks) then the blame lies with Cummings. That decision cost Hull a win IMO and impacted on the league placings of Hull and Leeds. The very same weekend, Paul Wellens was not sent off for an identical scenario by Ben Thaler. One was right and the other was wrong depending upon what the officials have been instructed by Cummings. Thaler's decision impacted upon Castleford and Crusaders greatly but also Saints and Wire. So we had a vital weekend of matches where referees were critical in determining outcomes with glaring inconsistency.

We now pay our referees a very good income. We were assured by Stuart Cummings that full time officials would equate to better officiating. These officials now have 100% time / focus / energy working as a collective group YET they are still inconsistent and worse than in previous seasons. The standard in 2010 has been awful. So on that basis the person in charge, Cummings needs to go.

A word on the farce for sending players off for punching. NO player IIRC has ever been hurt badly by a fight. Fans may say otherwise but they get excited by a bit of biff. Our sport is a physical contest of real strength nowhere more than in the front row. Here we had the first 10 minutes of a vital highly charged contest and such things happen. A sin bin for both players would have sufficed and been far better. IMAGINE the best RL spectacle, the State of Origin. Had Ian Smith made such a farcical decision in one of those game the Aussies would not have been throwing beer cans at him, they would have lynched him. In the NRL, officials are held genuinely accountable by the media (our is spineless) but also by the sport itself. In recent weeks 2 NRL match officials have been dropped and whatsmore one, Bill Harrigan came out and said I got it wrong, I need to pay the price. Robert Finch - Cummings in the NRL will come out and say the referee got it wrong. Such actions never happen here.

Ryan Bailey was not even warned for an attempted head but. Farcical given the present RFL stance.

The judiciary. Yes we have an appeal procedure and I am livid that my own club seems to operate a no appeal policy because IMO EVERY club must appeal from now on because the discrepancy was farcical.

People talk about the courts of law having the right of appeal but that normally requires new evidence does it not? Here we had a RFL panel watching / listening to a case and giving a decision. A fresh panel 24 hours later watching / listening to exactly the same case a giving a completely diffierent decision. Imagine if that happened in a Court of Law. It would not and there is an overiding expectation that the law of the land is consistently applied otherwise uproar would ensue. Yet in RL we celebrate INCONSISTENCY which IMO is a farce.

We have no media holding the game to account and many fans are blind.

I must admit to liking this post a great deal :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a lot seem to have missed is the first hearing should of not been allowed as no court judge there.

They said Radford not provoked.

Then panal with a judge says Radford was provoked, so does this show we need a panal that is not any thing to do with our sport and its biased minded people.

Said in first report that they took in to consideration Radfords 15 years of never been sent off, then give him the max fine and penalty for the offence.

Truely illogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read and learn ;)

Robert Finch - Cummings in the NRL will come out and say the referee got it wrong. Such actions never happen here.

Yes they do. A referee made a mistake in a Championship game earlier this year and I enquired about it. Stuart said he was wrong and what's more, the ref didn't do a game the following week.

Good point about the appeal, although similar things do happen in the courts. They didn't find him Not Guilty, as he still pleaded Guilty, they just reduced the sentence.

I'm not sure that asking for leniency on the grounds that the next game is a Hull derby is a good idea. It should be totally irrelevant. I'm still unsure why the first panel didn't think that he was provoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any specific examples of somebody gettng sent off for throwing a punch and missing?

I know its not a sending off but Calderwood got sin binned in the last derby match for not throwing a punch, does that count? ;)

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.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017