Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
westhuller

Radford Wins Appeal

47 posts in this topic

I always had my faith in the RFL Disciplinary panel, all good men, honest and true.

What say you 3owls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense has prevailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a pile of ######, one rule for one and lets make up something for another, the rugby league is pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always had my faith in the RFL Disciplinary panel, all good men, honest and true.

What say you 3owls?

That due process has been followed meticulously and that the outcome is a fair one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the face of it seems strange, given, as you say, that they were already aware of the mitigating factors.

Perhaps the appeal is heard by a different panel.

I think that is the case.

It will be interesting to read the notes when they are published, but based on the fact that he was sent off after only 9 minutes then in effect he and his team were punished for one game already, and that is often seen as enough punishment, maybe the 2nd panel went with that view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some of the notes from the initial ban hearing:

The panel have taken a great deal of time to come to the decision. You have been given credit for your long unblemished record in the game and the fact that you have pleaded guilty. In our view however this was a serious matter, virtually an assault by punching a player four times to the head who was on the ground, and although your opponent was allowed to continue with the game he did sustain a blood injury.

Sounds like it was touch and go, and the comments almost invite an appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are some of the notes from the initial ban hearing:

The panel have taken a great deal of time to come to the decision. You have been given credit for your long unblemished record in the game and the fact that you have pleaded guilty. In our view however this was a serious matter, virtually an assault by punching a player four times to the head who was on the ground, and although your opponent was allowed to continue with the game he did sustain a blood injury.

Sounds like it was touch and go, and the comments almost invite an appeal.

I hope these people never judge a boxing match

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't make sense. If Radford was provoked by Bailey, how come Bailey had no case to answer for the contact with the elbow? It was either accidental or it wasn't.

If it was accidental then Radford was out of order and should be banned (although he missed nearly a whole game anyway). If not, Bailey should be up on a charge.

Still, holding 2 contradictory views at once is quite common in RL!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This doesn't make sense. If Radford was provoked by Bailey, how come Bailey had no case to answer for the contact with the elbow? It was either accidental or it wasn't.

If it was accidental then Radford was out of order and should be banned (although he missed nearly a whole game anyway). If not, Bailey should be up on a charge.

Still, holding 2 contradictory views at once is quite common in RL!!

That doesn't necessarily make sense. Just because he was provoked doesn't mean that the provocation deserved a ban. They didn't decide to call him up, so they thought it wasn't too serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope these people never judge a boxing match

Well these are the same people that decided Bailey had hit Radford with a forearm, rather than repeatedly with an elbow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps the appeal is heard by a different panel.

Indeed it was. Here they are....

29mrdd3.jpg

This may of course be lost on some who haven't followed this forum recently....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it also seems using the elbow is ok these days as did wellens on a prone defenseless player in the cas game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we appeal and get Bailey banned? It would be worth 300 quid.

Sound good to me. How much do we have to put in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief! It was only a punch to his head. Its not as if it was anywhere important or useful to him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The level of provocation Radford faced was nothing compared to that which Fielden was subjected to by Mason. Bailey wound Radford up within the rules of the game. Fielden was not dismissed, but Wigan still lost the game.

Ian Smith was entirely correct to send Radford off for an attack at the head of a player. Fielden was banned for one match for punching an opponent. He only connected properly once, on Mason's chin. The rescinding of this one match ban handed down to Radford brings the integrity of the disciplinary panel and it's procedures into serious doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The level of provocation Radford faced was nothing compared to that which Fielden was subjected to by Mason. Bailey wound Radford up within the rules of the game. Fielden was not dismissed, but Wigan still lost the game.

Ian Smith was entirely correct to send Radford off for an attack at the head of a player. Fielden was banned for one match for punching an opponent. He only connected properly once, on Mason's chin. The rescinding of this one match ban handed down to Radford brings the integrity of the disciplinary panel and it's procedures into serious doubt.

The best reply on this thread bar none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The level of provocation Radford faced was nothing compared to that which Fielden was subjected to by Mason. Bailey wound Radford up within the rules of the game. Fielden was not dismissed, but Wigan still lost the game.

Ian Smith was entirely correct to send Radford off for an attack at the head of a player. Fielden was banned for one match for punching an opponent. He only connected properly once, on Mason's chin. The rescinding of this one match ban handed down to Radford brings the integrity of the disciplinary panel and it's procedures into serious doubt.

No it doesn't. It was absolutely the correct decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always had my faith in the RFL Disciplinary panel, all good men, honest and true.

What say you 3owls?

Ha ha, it'll run forever this one. I think the most important factor is that the panel upheld the guilty decision, they backed the referee, they backed me, and they backed the 10%. Nothing changes, he deserved to be sent off and that's what the panel have confirmed. It's just a shame that contributors views are judged to be "contemptible" because they don't agree with a faction from this forum when in fact their views are endorsed by ex players that you cherished so dearly initially. It really doesn't bother me that his ban has been rescinded, he was sent off and the panel have subsequently decided that was punishment enough. I still think players personalities and club loyalties affected contributors judgement on this debate. Radford was sent off, he was found guilty and fined

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The level of provocation Radford faced was nothing compared to that which Fielden was subjected to by Mason. Bailey wound Radford up within the rules of the game. Fielden was not dismissed, but Wigan still lost the game.

Ian Smith was entirely correct to send Radford off for an attack at the head of a player. Fielden was banned for one match for punching an opponent. He only connected properly once, on Mason's chin. The rescinding of this one match ban handed down to Radford brings the integrity of the disciplinary panel and it's procedures into serious doubt.

Last time I checked, you weren't allowed to elbow a player in the head repeatedly. But what would I know? I'm only a referee.

And you can't compare Fielden to Radford, as Radford was sent off. You can't give a Sending Off Sufficient reply to Fielden, can you? Radford's punishment came from the field of play in the form of a red card early in a game that most likely cost his team 4th place in the league and the game itself. Fielden had 10 minutes rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ha ha, it'll run forever this one. I think the most important factor is that the panel upheld the guilty decision, they backed the referee, they backed me, and they backed the 10%. Nothing changes, he deserved to be sent off and that's what the panel have confirmed. It's just a shame that contributors views are judged to be "contemptible" because they don't agree with a faction from this forum when in fact their views are endorsed by ex players that you cherished so dearly initially. It really doesn't bother me that his ban has been rescinded, he was sent off and the panel have subsequently decided that was punishment enough. I still think players personalities and club loyalties affected contributors judgement on this debate. Radford was sent off, he was found guilty and fined

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 24th July 2017