Sign in to follow this  
Loiner

Morgan Knowles.

Recommended Posts

First ban of the season ( deserved imho), will the disaplinary be consistent for the rest of the season ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubtful given the disciplinary ignored a kick to the head (On report) and an gouge (penalised) by Warrington last Thursday 

Share this post


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

Wasn't Moa banned last week?

That's just being pedantic.

If Moa hadn't been banned it would have been the first.

Unless anyone else knows better...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little lost here concerning Benjamin Jullien. He challenges the penalty notice which if unsuccessful carries a further game ban,yet only receives a one match ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit to not really understanding the changes to the disciplinary. They appear to have made unnecessary changes and when they were saying Moa got a 2 match penalty notice last week I didnt realise that meant a ban.

I suppose the committee have to justify themselves somehow.

Share this post


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

I must admit to not really understanding the changes to the disciplinary. They appear to have made unnecessary changes and when they were saying Moa got a 2 match penalty notice last week I didnt realise that meant a ban.

I suppose the committee have to justify themselves somehow.

All they should have to do is review the video evidence and the refs report then if guilty a fixed sentence everyone knows in advance should be the the final word.

And commentators need to stop saying "He's not that kind of player." That's not the point, the offence is the point.

Every year we have these why has he been banned and he's got away with it threads and some fans feeling their team is being victimised because we can't see the rhyme or reason behind the verdicts.

And as you say Dave the changes are as mystifying as the rest of the process.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Oxford said:

All they should have to do is review the video evidence and the refs report then if guilty a fixed sentence everyone knows in advance should be the the final word.

And commentators need to stop saying "He's not that kind of player." That's not the point, the offence is the point.

Every year we have these why has he been banned and he's got away with it threads and some fans feeling their team is being victimised because we can't see the rhyme or reason behind the verdicts.

And as you say Dave the changes are as mystifying as the rest of the process.

 

It can’t work like that all high tackles are not the same. As all crushers aren’t or all fights aren’t. Each incident has to be judged on its own merits. To try to change the system in order to find one to stop fans moaning would be a waste of time. Some fans just need to suck it up and let the grown ups get on with it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

It can’t work like that all high tackles are not the same. As all crushers aren’t or all fights aren’t. Each incident has to be judged on its own merits. To try to change the system in order to find one to stop fans moaning would be a waste of time. Some fans just need to suck it up and let the grown ups get on with it. 

Well there's one sense in which they are all the same they're head high and they're crusher tackles.

If the only time we make a a different outcome is based on record then that's fair enough in that first offence of the same transgression is 5 matches and going up one each time, at least it would be clear and no one could be accused of bias.

Yes fans on the whole do need to suck things up and stop moaning but while the system is seemingly incoherent it will always appear to be loaded.

"My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time—
To let the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime......."

Judge-Saying-Guilty-60527.gif.8aad5135f78cebdf78a39bcf3e34d186.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

It can’t work like that all

This is not a go at you bob just the phrase

A pound for every time that sort of phrase appears on a suggestion or something new and imaginative on here and I'd be living up the Pyrenees and watching the Dragons at home and Limoux, Carca, Lezignan and Catalan reserves when they're away. And I might be seduced into a BIB or two.;)

 

HTB1DaABb7fb_uJjSsrb5jb6bVXaq.gif.db0fa11e638e917fec38bbb66372443b.gif

 

karen-box-wine.gif.ce6a89137f6077f328f6f62a2e211584.gif

 

 

Edited by Oxford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

All they should have to do is review the video evidence and the refs report then if guilty a fixed sentence everyone knows in advance should be the the final word.

And commentators need to stop saying "He's not that kind of player." That's not the point, the offence is the point.

 

 

The NRL uses the points system which I think is better as it takes into account their previous indiscretions. 

So if say Knowles and another player had been charged with the same offence then it's quite right that Knowles gets 4 matches and the other player gets  say 6 if the other player has a poor disciplinary record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

The NRL uses the points system which I think is better as it takes into account their previous indiscretions. 

So if say Knowles and another player had been charged with the same offence then it's quite right that Knowles gets 4 matches and the other player gets  say 6 if the other player has a poor disciplinary record.

Exactly and it's funny how it works perfectly well in Oz and is incomprehensible to fans over here. Though from what I recall and as pointed out fans still think it's biased and that's because it is, of course, against my team!;)

Edited by Oxford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Oxford said:

Well there's one sense in which they are all the same they're head high and they're crusher tackles.

If the only time we make a a different outcome is based on record then that's fair enough in that first offence of the same transgression is 5 matches and going up one each time, at least it would be clear and no one could be accused of bias.

Yes fans on the whole do need to suck things up and stop moaning but while the system is seemingly incoherent it will always appear to be loaded.

"My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time—
To let the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime......."

Judge-Saying-Guilty-60527.gif.8aad5135f78cebdf78a39bcf3e34d186.gif

 

So high tackle 1/ is a slap to the face a penalty but no more. 

High tackle 2/ is a deliberate act which lifts the attacker off his feet with such force it knocks him out taking him out of the game and resulting in a red card for the defending player. 

Then what you are saying is the following Tuesday both players should get the same ban  

 

Edited by bobbruce

Share this post


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

So high tackle 1/ is a slap to the face a penalty but no more. 

High tackle 2/ is a deliberate act which lifts the attacker off his feet with such force it knocks him out taking him out of the game and resulting in a red card for the defending player. 

Then what you are saying is the following Tuesday both players should get the same ban  

 

All else being equal i e they both have a clean record yes .......contact with the head is dangerous.

Making distinctions rather than trying to get rid of it is part of the problem.

Edited by Oxford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

That's just being pedantic.

If Moa hadn't been banned it would have been the first.

Unless anyone else knows better...

Ok I get it, I missed that one sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty surprised he only got four games . Lower end of the scale ? I shudder to think what will look worse or more dangerous. I thought six , so I’ll be interested to see the consistency in rulings as the season goes on and in terms of what team and league  you’re playing in 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DavidM said:

Pretty surprised he only got four games . Lower end of the scale ? I shudder to think what will look worse or more dangerous. I thought six , so I’ll be interested to see the consistency in rulings as the season goes on and in terms of what team and league  you’re playing in 

Almost certainly only got 4 due to his previous good record, never been sent off before,  never been banned before. And to he honest can't remember the last time he's been penalised in a game for foul play such as a high tackle.

Had someone like Greg Bird or Mcilorum committed that tackle they would probably have been looking at 6-8 games.

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  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.