Sign in to follow this  
DoubleD

Disciplinary - Jackson Hastings

Recommended Posts

A bit surprised he only got 2 games...............think he's lucky. That could easily have broken O'Brien's jaw/eye socket.

By the laws of the game, the grading was probably correct, but he should've got the maximum 3 games for that given the severity in my opinion.

I don't want this to turn into another disciplinary bashing thread but I think, in general, some punishments are overly lenient in the grading.

It was needless and reckless. We need to be thinking about the next generation of players and what message does it send out if we don't protect the exciting pivots of the game and players of smaller stature (I realise the offender was actually a pivot in this occasion too).

O'Brien has had a lot of head knocks in his career, I do fear he'll end up with some permanent damage from it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Salford fan, I was expecting three games which would have meant his Salford career was probably over. Happy with the two games as it means he will be available for the final match against Toulouse if that game because a crucial 'must win' one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

crazy when you think jc got 12 month ban for having a fiver on his team to win a grand final.

 no need for thuggery like we had on hemingway off acton but 2 games wont stop cheap shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to see how Salford react to this. Hastings has really turned them around. Still need a win to guarantee survival (and i would put them as favourites against Leeds who have been awful) but if they fall to pieces they could get dragged back in to some nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t forsee this being a major problem for Salford. They’re on eight points now, a points tally that would guarantee a MPG berth every year, and with the confidence around them after four wins in a row, I can’t see a capitulation that would see them finish 4th or 5th. They need one win out of the next three for ‘safety’. 

 

Share this post


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

Salford will beat both London and Toulouse.

Toronto v London in MPG

I would agree with the above. Sadly TO don't look good enough to see off Salford. Salford on present form are the 8th best side in the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

Not too sure they will beat Toronto without Hastings playing

Erm...they don't need to, they won on Saturday 😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Southerner80 said:

I would agree with the above. Sadly TO don't look good enough to see off Salford. Salford on present form are the 8th best side in the country. 

Out of interest, S80, to which of the super 8s eight do you think they are superior?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a light punishment tbh. I think it is another example of the RFL disciplinary pretending that they are tough on player welfare.

It was a shocker and it knocked a player cold out. What are we waiting for? A broken jaw? Worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DoubleD said:

A bit surprised he only got 2 games...............think he's lucky. That could easily have broken O'Brien's jaw/eye socket.

By the laws of the game, the grading was probably correct, but he should've got the maximum 3 games for that given the severity in my opinion.

I don't want this to turn into another disciplinary bashing thread but I think, in general, some punishments are overly lenient in the grading.

It was needless and reckless. We need to be thinking about the next generation of players and what message does it send out if we don't protect the exciting pivots of the game and players of smaller stature (I realise the offender was actually a pivot in this occasion too).

O'Brien has had a lot of head knocks in his career, I do fear he'll end up with some permanent damage from it.

Haven't seen the incident but there is a tendency in contact sport to penalise outcome rather than intent. I'd far rather see a higher tariff for a deliberate/reckless attempt that does little to no damage than one where through circumstance and a culmination of events (a crusher tackle or high tackle for example) a more serious injury occurs. There's still a lot of ignorance of how the human body works in terms of 'late' tackles and kinetic energy, particularly when players fall or stoop at last second into what would without that would have being legitimate contact.

Some (clearly not all) crusher tackles are being called when there's an entanglement of players and shear weight of bodies mean that pressure was put upon a players head/neck, however it's virtually impossible to dictate how any one single tackle with multiple players involved works out particularly when you have the attacker trying their best to offload, bust the tackle and then immediately get up so are twisting themselves. Players cannot simply change their energy/motion to avoid unexpected occurrences.movements, the brain simply cannot process fast enough (hence why crash investigators state that reaction times to unexpected incidents are often in the 1.5s range).

There's been a few disciplinary outcomes where I've thought the RFL have used really poor thinking in how they came to their conclusions, both in letting off and indeed punishing players. Inconsistency is also a big problem. There's a big weight put on players to prove they are not guilty as opposed to being proven guilty without doubt or ignoring simple physics. Even the appeal system is unfair as you can only provide a limited amount of video evidence, adding extra punishment for appealing and still being found guilty/losing appeal is also wrong IMHO. That's not how justice should work, particularly when someone is genuinely trying to clear their name.

Edited by Denton Rovers RLFC
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

Out of interest, S80, to which of the super 8s eight do you think they are superior?

Hull?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should have been at least three (3) games minimum. The sad part is that Salford had to bring in this goon to stay up, now he is suspended and will probably not be there next year since he will just move to the next highest bidder. No way to build a proper club as far as I'm concerned, wrong way to go about it.

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't seen the incident but there is a tendency in contact sport to penalise outcome rather than intent.

That's because most are based on UK law, which does the same thing. Example - reckless driving versus causing death by reckless driving. In both cases the action was the same but the result means the difference between a ban/fine and a prison sentence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Celtic Rooster said:

Over reactions galore. The game is going soft.

The legal environment has changed and it has a duty of care.

Its understandable the sport has to be seen to crack down on dangerous tackling, particularly for televised games.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Celtic Rooster said:

Over reactions galore. The game is going soft.

Not really. Players used to get banned many more matches for high tackles. It was right soft back then clearly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kayakman said:

Should have been at least three (3) games minimum. The sad part is that Salford had to bring in this goon to stay up, now he is suspended and will probably not be there next year since he will just move to the next highest bidder. No way to build a proper club as far as I'm concerned, wrong way to go about it.

Irrespective of how many games Hastings got,how many “goons” have TWP signed to achieve what they want.

Most clubs have signed players before signing deadline its within the rules of the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, WSCR said:

 Irrespective of how many games Hastings got,how many “goons” have TWP signed to achieve what they want.

Most clubs have signed players before signing deadline its within the rules of the game.

Indeed. It is an odd criticism tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kayakman said:

Should have been at least three (3) games minimum. The sad part is that Salford had to bring in this goon to stay up, now he is suspended and will probably not be there next year since he will just move to the next highest bidder. No way to build a proper club as far as I'm concerned, wrong way to go about it.

Ha ha and Toronto didn't make any signings for the 8s? Are you saying Toronto are showing the way to build a proper club?

  • Like 1

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.


League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday



Rugby League World - Sept 2018

Rugby League World - Sept 2018

Rugby League Books On Sale Here