Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Spidey

Disciplinary

44 posts in this topic

Houston found not guilty ūüė≥

While I probably agree with the outcome as Bentham not looking where he was going before the collision.  I'm surprised that he's been found not guilty based upon past cases. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incredible isn't it , in Leigh's match with Salford , the ref Jack Smith runs directly in line of a grabber kick between the Leigh posts , he then steps back directly into Gregg McNallys path , McNally to avoid the collision pushes Smith to the side and knocks the ball over the dead ball line giving away the drop out rather than concede the try , if Smith isn't in the way McNally could have taken the ball and attempted to run the ball out over the goal line 

A grade C ensues , because of the recent cases Leigh accept the EGP , McNally gets 2 matches 

Quite ridiculous 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the one replay I saw I must admit I didnt think there was much in it but I didnt watch it properly.

Interesting that the prop forwards union that is the disciplinary have downgraded Amor's tackle so he got no ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Incredible isn't it , in Leigh's match with Salford , the ref Jack Smith runs directly in line of a grabber kick between the Leigh posts , he then steps back directly into Gregg McNallys path , McNally to avoid the collision pushes Smith to the side and knocks the ball over the dead ball line giving away the drop out rather than concede the try , if Smith isn't in the way McNally could have taken the ball and attempted to run the ball out over the goal line 

A grade C ensues , because of the recent cases Leigh accept the EGP , McNally gets 2 matches 

Quite ridiculous 

The lesson learned from this, is If you think you're innocent you shouldn't use your EGP and go defend yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spidey said:

The lesson learned from this, is If you think you're innocent you shouldn't use your EGP and go defend yourself

Indeed , the decision was made because of other recent cases , all resulting in bans , just our luck the tide turns as we fall out of the boat 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Houston gets a NG for contesting the offence,which was far worse than Smith(Ref) backing into McNally.WTF were the club thinking about.Lesson to be learnt,contest every future decision.Consistency from the Judiciary is all fans ask for!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bartholemew Smythe said:

Houston gets a NG for contesting the offence,which was far worse than Smith(Ref) backing into McNally.WTF were the club thinking about.Lesson to be learnt,contest every future decision.Consistency from the Judiciary is all fans ask for!

 

This all goes back to the Justin Carney decision, which was a travesty. McNally obviously thought he was in for a serious ban and opted for the EGP. Suddenly, the Disciplinary decide "Hey! Pushing the Ref is no big deal."

Consistency? Transparency? Common sense? Pull the other one!

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spidey said:

Houston found not guilty ūüė≥

While I probably agree with the outcome as Bentham not looking where he was going before the collision.  I'm surprised that he's been found not guilty based upon past cases. 

 

Think the RFL have probably decided Widnes need all the help they can get ;)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gates1 said:

Think the RFL have probably decided Widnes need all the help they can get ;)

If that was truely the case they'd ban him for the season. Our penalty count would drop dramatically ūüėČ

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dave T said:

 

Interesting that the prop forwards union that is the disciplinary have downgraded Amor's tackle so he got no ban.

Should never have been charged in the first place, complete joke. At least they've seen sense and not banned Amor and Dropped Thaler to the Championship again this weekend.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this charade that has erupted this season re contact with officials is making me lose faith with a game that I have been involved with for well over 50 years, the first one that set the presidence involving Justin Carney was an absolute disgrace, and the fact that the two I have witnessed this last week the one involving Phil Bentham and the other with Jack Smith which was a matter of meters from where I was stood makes the mind boggle, very clearly and most evidently it is the referees who have placed themselves in an unavoidable contact area with the players involved not the other way round.

Has the game suddenly developed THIS SEASON players who are so malicious that they are going out of their way to harm the officials, of course not. These referees and the judiciary panel need to grow up and get some common sense.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Should never have been charged in the first place, complete joke. At least they've seen sense and not banned Amor and Dropped Thaler to the Championship again this weekend.

I don't agree. He was found guilty of foul play, which suggests that the charge was correct.

Amor made a tackle that ended up with his arm across the wingers face - irrespective of where it started. Had he tackled round his legs, there would have been 0% chance of it ending high. Tackle round the stomach and that maybe increases to 25% chance of ending high, top of ball 50% chance, shoulder 75%. Literally the only person responsible for that tackle ending up high was Amor.

The RFL are continuing their approach of condoning foul play and they deserve any future lawsuits that come their way.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't agree. He was found guilty of foul play, which suggests that the charge was correct.

Amor made a tackle that ended up with his arm across the wingers face - irrespective of where it started. Had he tackled round his legs, there would have been 0% chance of it ending high. Tackle round the stomach and that maybe increases to 25% chance of ending high, top of ball 50% chance, shoulder 75%. Literally the only person responsible for that tackle ending up high was Amor.

The RFL are continuing their approach of condoning foul play and they deserve any future lawsuits that come their way.

Yep that's how I saw it. His tackling technique was at fault - this excuse of it coming off the ball is just that an excuse. What's to stop "thugs" just aiming at the ball hoping it rides up and hits somebody in the face 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what your saying is Amor is a thug .... that's what you are inferring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, morty said:

so what your saying is Amor is a thug .... that's what you are inferring?

No, that's what you inferred from what he said. He may not be a thug, but he is capable of the actions of a thug!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dallimore was up before the Beak on an RFL charge grade D offence which has a tariff of 3-5 game ban.

He pleaded not guilty and the panel accepted that it was not a deliberate attempt to inflict damage. 

Nevertheless he was found guilty and given a 6 game ban.

If it was worthy of a 6 game ban why wasn't he charged with an E grade offence?

Under the law if you are found guilty of deliberate murder then its a life tariff, on the other hand if it wasn't intentional it's reduced to manslaughter  and the sentence reflects that. The poor victim is still dead and it doesnt help him but justice is still served.

Why the extra punishment? Perhaps because a 3rd party ( the injured players parent club) also got involved? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I don't agree. He was found guilty of foul play, which suggests that the charge was correct.

Amor made a tackle that ended up with his arm across the wingers face - irrespective of where it started. Had he tackled round his legs, there would have been 0% chance of it ending high. Tackle round the stomach and that maybe increases to 25% chance of ending high, top of ball 50% chance, shoulder 75%. Literally the only person responsible for that tackle ending up high was Amor.

The RFL are continuing their approach of condoning foul play and they deserve any future lawsuits that come their way.

Except that you see at least a dozen other tackles like this every single week and some don't even get an on-field penalty.

I'm fine with what the RFL have done with Amor just as long as they now charge every single player every week who makes contact with an opponents head. Following the RFL's own ruling then any head contact is a Grade B charge regardless of whether first contact was with the body or not.

They hadn't charged any other player in the previous 8 rounds of SL for a tackle like this and I seriously doubt they'll charge any in future rounds. So its not so much the fact he was charged, its the completely incompetent way the RFL handle charges & gradings across the whole game 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, morty said:

so what your saying is Amor is a thug .... that's what you are inferring?

Not at all - but that excuse of it hit the ball first would give licence to thugs to inflict damage. If players know they face suspension they may make more of an effort to work on their tackling technique to avoid such contact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

Except that you see at least a dozen other tackles like this every single week and some don't even get an on-field penalty.

I'm fine with what the RFL have done with Amor just as long as they now charge every single player every week who makes contact with an opponents head. Following the RFL's own ruling then any head contact is a Grade B charge regardless of whether first contact was with the body or not.

They hadn't charged any other player in the previous 8 rounds of SL for a tackle like this and I seriously doubt they'll charge any in future rounds. So its not so much the fact he was charged, its the completely incompetent way the RFL handle charges & gradings across the whole game 

You really dont see tackles like that all tge time at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

No, that's what you inferred from what he said. He may not be a thug, but he is capable of the actions of a thug!

Utter Tosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bearman said:

Dallimore was up before the Beak on an RFL charge grade D offence which has a tariff of 3-5 game ban.

He pleaded not guilty and the panel accepted that it was not a deliberate attempt to inflict damage. 

Nevertheless he was found guilty and given a 6 game ban.

If it was worthy of a 6 game ban why wasn't he charged with an E grade offence?

Under the law if you are found guilty of deliberate murder then its a life tariff, on the other hand if it wasn't intentional it's reduced to manslaughter  and the sentence reflects that. The poor victim is still dead and it doesnt help him but justice is still served.

Why the extra punishment? Perhaps because a 3rd party ( the injured players parent club) also got involved? 

At the same time Toronto sign super league player, what a joke they are making of championship 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just have to love the man of the people's reaction:

He's even stuck Wane in the background. :D

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dave T said:

You really dont see tackles like that all tge time at all.

You do though, there was at least one more in the same game, and several more in the televised games that weekend. It was a terrible decision and thankfully common sense has prevailed for once.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dkw said:

You do though, there was at least one more in the same game, and several more in the televised games that weekend. It was a terrible decision and thankfully common sense has prevailed for once.

No. You really dont. It was an unusually bad tackle.

1 person likes this

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 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017