Penno 34 Report post Posted March 20 I know that though our rose tinted supports glasses the RFL always seems to be against Championship sides and the Super League players get away with a lot worse without suspension, but I was looking on the RFL site at cases that the panel had considered and the outcomes. In short this year of all the cases that the panel has looked at only 15% of Super League players have been charged as a result of a review, where in the Championship it is 38% and League 1 it is also 38%. Maybe the panel also wears rose tinted glasses some of the time. Regards Penno 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Havenwarrior 167 Report post Posted March 20 3 hours ago, Penno said: I know that though our rose tinted supports glasses the RFL always seems to be against Championship sides and the Super League players get away with a lot worse without suspension, but I was looking on the RFL site at cases that the panel had considered and the outcomes. In short this year of all the cases that the panel has looked at only 15% of Super League players have been charged as a result of a review, where in the Championship it is 38% and League 1 it is also 38%. Maybe the panel also wears rose tinted glasses some of the time. Regards Penno Are more SL players cited? SL clubs also go with solicitors/barristers to defend them, something most Champ clubs can’t afford. HW 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TMF 374 Report post Posted March 20 And this is a surprise? But good point Penno. One of the many reasons people are loosing faith with the elite (SKY) but not the game, I hope. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Les Tonks Sidestep 633 Report post Posted March 20 One thing I find confusing is the regularity at which gradings cited by the Match Review Panel get downgraded by 2 or more at the Disciplinary Hearing. 1 I could just about understand but 2 or 3? Suggests to me that some (re)training for consistency is badly needed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Penno 34 Report post Posted March 20 2 hours ago, Havenwarrior said: Are more SL players cited? SL clubs also go with solicitors/barristers to defend them, something most Champ clubs can’t afford. HW Hi HW, yes SL teams are being cited at an average of around four per game compared to 2 per game for the other two leagues. Not sure what to make of this statistic though, does it mean that SL refs are putting too many things on report or that the two leagues are reporting too few? Or simply that SL does have more incidents that need to go on report. When looking at charges (guilty) per match between the leagues SL stands at approximately 0.5 per match and 0.75 for the other two leagues, so still 50% more players charged per game for the lower league clubs. (all figures now approximate as I am not looking at the spreadsheet) Regards Penno Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Les Tonks Sidestep 633 Report post Posted March 21 20 hours ago, Penno said: Hi HW, yes SL teams are being cited at an average of around four per game compared to 2 per game for the other two leagues. Not sure what to make of this statistic though, does it mean that SL refs are putting too many things on report or that the two leagues are reporting too few? Or simply that SL does have more incidents that need to go on report. When looking at charges (guilty) per match between the leagues SL stands at approximately 0.5 per match and 0.75 for the other two leagues, so still 50% more players charged per game for the lower league clubs. (all figures now approximate as I am not looking at the spreadsheet) Regards Penno Most of the citings come from the Match Review Panel, who view the video of every game looking for incidents, not from the ref putting incidents 'on report' or clubs asking for incidents to be reviewed. Still doesn't explain why there are more 'incidents' from SL games though unless they are more thorough in the way they watch the SL games, which could be possible as they have to watch half as many of them as the total of Champ and Champ 1 games Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fan80 0 Report post Posted March 21 They’d don’t watch championship and league one games. They review every second of super league. Only incidents on report/red/yellow cards or club citations are watched in champ c1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Les Tonks Sidestep 633 Report post Posted March 21 I'm sure they used to but guess it must have changed from a few years ago - following the 'Disciplinary Review' during the off season? That would explain the discrepancy in numbers then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willow 0 Report post Posted March 22 Surely barrow can name the sheffield players caught on video with joe & Andy Dally has been done twice cant understand it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Plan of Attack 34 Report post Posted March 23 BEN BLACKMORE - SHEFFIELD BARROW V SHEFFIELD - CHALLENGE CUP RANGE OF RECOMMENDED SANCTIONS IN RELATION TO CHARGED GRADE* : 1 Match Penalty Notice DETAILS OF CHARGE / REASON FOR NF : Rule - 15.1(a) Detail – Kicks - Kicks opponent - Light contact Grade - A DECISION: Charge INCIDENT: Kicking in the 70th minute (Litherland) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wonderofwood 341 Report post Posted March 24 Conroy from the Cougars against Bradford last week !!!! One match for exactly the same breach of rule that Dallimore got hit with - one game there is no grading of dangerous contact its either dangerous or it isn't ? The disciplinary panel has ruled that Nathan breached rule Rule – 15.1(i) Dangerous Contact – Defender uses any part of his body to forcefully twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk to injury to that player. As a result, Conroy has been handed a 1 match penalty notice and will miss Sunday’s away fixture against the York City Knights. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Raider94 61 Report post Posted March 24 I think Dallimore got banned for the same thing last year and thats why he received a longer ban this time under the new rules. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
