Sign in to follow this  
DoubleD

Disciplinary - Jackson Hastings

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, tim2 said:

 

 

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.

 

Sorry but you are absolutely wrong, that's not how the British justice system works, you've given an example showing same intent but a different level of outcome, of course the punishment is different! There's no such thing as reckless driving, it's either dangerous or careless/inconsiderate..

Death by dangerous driving (or Death by careless under influence of drugs/drink) carries a maximum tariff of 14 years, death by careless/inconsiderate 5 years, this takes into account level of intent/deliberate actions. You've not only intended to go out driving under drink/drugs but the action of the driving was careless also, both together means equivalent to dangerous despite the lesser driving action.

Serious injury by dangerous driving carries the same maximum sentence of death by careless, because the justice system recognises that a death through carelessness is to be punished no worse than serious injury by dangerous driving - which is more about fortune/luck that a person was not more seriously harmed due to the serious actions of those posing the threat of harm. in fact serious injury by dangerous driving is being pursued in courts and indeed sentencing is often more vigorous than death by careless (we can argue as to leniency of downgrading a charge to death by careless but that's for another discussion) 

This is replicated in the Offences against the persons act 1861, crimes. The difference between involuntary manslaughter and GBH tariffs make this clear. One a worse outcome but with lesser intent invariably receives a lower sentence, also the difference between murder and unlawful act manslaughter.

In RL this often does not happen, intent is thrown out the window too often with players getting off because no injury or a lesser injury occured, a more serious injury that occurs through a careless unintentional action or even despite no fault is punished far more harshly on average. This is seen every time the disciplinary comes up and indeed on the field with red/yellow cards. A deliberate swinging arm that just misses gets a penalty, a tackle that ends up putting pressure on a players neck is often deemed as reckless despite many of them being unable to extricate themselves simply due to the randomness of any given tackle. For example, Gareth Ellis got two games for a nothing tackle where he was unable to do anything because of how the tackled players' body was, absolutely zero intent and unable to extricate himself from that position, you cannot predict where the attackers body is going to be. Deliberate swinging arm with intent that misses, simple penalty and nothing more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2018 at 11:56 PM, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

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.

Totally agree with you Denton, to many times we see the injustice of a sentance based on injury other than intent, in this case of Hastings/O'Brien as I stated in the match thread Hastings dives to exectute the tackle the arm is most definatley swinging but it does not alter it's swing direction O'Brien's body moves downwards and he puts his head into the collision path of the hand, if O'Brien stays upright the hand hits in the lower chest area.

For me the best example of a player moving his head into the contact area was the incident with Brett Hodgeson/Hep Cahill it looked horrendous and the injuries were bad, but the speed of the incident and the target area that was aimed for in my opinion was the middle body, Cahill could not adjust once he moves to effect the tackle if Hodgeson jumps to take the ball he would have been tackled in the air (free kick), if Hodgeson stays up right on recieving the ball it would have been a perfectly timed tackle to the body and applauded, the fact that Hodgeson stoops down on recieving the ball he put his head into the collision area, so in my opininion the same tackle performed has three completley different outcomes all generated by the ball reciever, not the tackler.

Maybe in this particular case the referee seeing the incident at full speed has no option but to take the action he did, but the judiciary having the benefit of the various cameras angles and slow motion should see things somewhat different.

Anyway make your own mind up, normal camera and full speed looks horrendous, slow mo and different angles give another aspect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, Cahill can't know what Hodgson will do, he presumes from BH position that he's not going to jump as he's planted his feet, so really Cahill has timed his run to tackle perfectly. Unfortunately for him BH has misjudged the ball and has to stoop forward for it, if he doesn't he gets clattered across the chest, probably gets very winded but no head contact and as you say the great timing of the tackle is applauded.

There is absolutely no way that Cahill can change what he is already planning to do based on what he sees, now if BH was stepping back and looking like he was going to run and jump Cahill would maybe have checked his run a bit to take account of that but BH doesn't give any sign of going to jump for it. Maybe that is a consequence of being wiped out mid air too many times in the past, who knows.

If you start to second guess what will happen then you won't have full contact sport, yes it's direct contact to the head but there is absolutely zero intent to do that, it's not an early hit or a late hit, the timing is absolutely spot on. The rules unfortunately in RL regarding this and indeed the disciplinary thereafter are very poor IMHO and take next to zero account to intention and just base on severity of injury/outcome. It does my head in, I was even defending Dylan Hartley some while back who got murdered in the press and by fans and got I think some ridiculous ban, yet video evidence prove he used his arms, wasn't late and that the player literally dropped in front of him a split second before contact. The contact would have been around the chest but wasn't. Utterly ridiculous by the panel but you know, it's Hartley so he's got a bit of form and they basically flung the book at him incorrectly IMHO.

In his position and other players I would be getting a legal person in to prove how the panel are actually wrong, too often clubs are virtually forced to accept the punishment or take an early guilty plea because it means less 'clink' through mickey poor procedure, it's hateful and not justice at all, it's a bullying system wielding its might in a wrongful manner IMHO and because of that it has zero respect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The players are very loyal...over here we have an actual term for English people who come and become loyal to this place....they are called of all things, Loyalists.  There are tens of thousands of them.

You can't go questioning Hastings loyalty to Salford when you have signed players for the 8s and call them loyal. Unbelieveable

Share this post


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

Of course they wouldn’t be confident, this was a team that was in League 1 last year, they’re clearly not going to have a team full of SL standard players. Why on earth would you think otherwise?

I don't think otherwise at all. It was a mere observation about this posters slating of a player signed for the 8s when they have done the same themselves and claim the players they signed are massively loyal to the club yet Hastings isn't. Loyalty to a club doesn't just come overnight and this poster doesn't have a real grip on reality.

Never mind them being a league 1 side last year the side this year isn't good enough. A whole host of players not good enough to get Leigh up, a coach with no plan B at all except if it doesnt go their way fight. I'd even go as far to say they looked more cohesive and a better team, not necessarily better players, last year. The money they are spending now they should be flying but whoever is responsible for recruitment has let the owners down in my opinion. Shows you cant build a team just throwing money about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thepimp007 said:

I don't think otherwise at all. It was a mere observation about this posters slating of a player signed for the 8s when they have done the same themselves and claim the players they signed are massively loyal to the club yet Hastings isn't. Loyalty to a club doesn't just come overnight and this poster doesn't have a real grip on reality.

Never mind them being a league 1 side last year the side this year isn't good enough. A whole host of players not good enough to get Leigh up, a coach with no plan B at all except if it doesnt go their way fight. I'd even go as far to say they looked more cohesive and a better team, not necessarily better players, last year. The money they are spending now they should be flying but whoever is responsible for recruitment has let the owners down in my opinion. Shows you cant build a team just throwing money about

They won the Championship at a canter, what more do you want?

Leigh spent a shed load of money and didn't even make the Top 4.

These players maybe good enough to get Toronto up, who knows at this stage? It looks likely that they'll make the MPG at least which would be their minimum achievement I'd imagine. Of course they're going to look a better team against lower division teams last year, that's obvious.

I think Koukash proved that you can't build a team just throwing money about. Everyone knows that, even Warrington and that you need to put structures and build a club ethos to be able to be successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thepimp007 said:

You can't go questioning Hastings loyalty to Salford when you have signed players for the 8s and call them loyal. Unbelieveable

Sure I can...just did.  He was brought in for a few games and he will then be off...a hired gun.  Now someone said different on here and I hope that I was wrong but we will see....do you think he will be at Salford this time next year?...maybe , and if so I was wrong.  But that has yet to be proven.

All of the Toronto signing are/were  long term in nature....the players are very loyal to the Wolfpack....just ask them?  I didn't know you could read the minds of the Toronto players and how they feel about loyalty to the Club?

And as per you comments to DoubleD about the progress of the team, their playoff performances, etc.  That chapter of the story has yet to be written and I, for one, am not counting them out.  

You must have a crystal ball of something Magi.

Share this post


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

They won the Championship at a canter, what more do you want?

Leigh spent a shed load of money and didn't even make the Top 4.

These players maybe good enough to get Toronto up, who knows at this stage? It looks likely that they'll make the MPG at least which would be their minimum achievement I'd imagine. Of course they're going to look a better team against lower division teams last year, that's obvious.

I think Koukash proved that you can't build a team just throwing money about. Everyone knows that, even Warrington and that you need to put structures and build a club ethos to be able to be successful.

Leigh also wont the championship at a canter when Rowley was in charge but his limitations held them back in the super 8s. The similarity is there. I want Toronto to succeed and feel they will offer a great deal to SL not just on the pitch either. All I am getting at is I feel a more experienced coach would have had a less blinkered eye on recruitment would have had them in a position to go up without the need for the MPG.

Like I tried alluding to I wasn;t talking about onfield ability when I said they looked more of a team, I meant as a cohesive unit and players had more of an understanding of each other, but maybe thats down to the amount of changes they have made throughout the season.

The other point was Kayakman was claiming Torontos signings for the 8s were loyal to Toronto, yet Hastings couldn't be loyal to Salford. I was just pointing out it was a ridiculous notion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2018 at 12:22 PM, Kayakman said:

Correct.

You seem to have taken issue with the fact that we signed Jackson Hastings just to stay up, whereas in truth we signed him on a short term basis as we had just lost Jack Littlejohn to long term injury and had no cover in the halfs.

Didn't you sign Mason Caton-Brown through to the end of the season to replace Greg Worthington who was injured? 

Ironically by all accounts you outbid Salford to do so. 

I suppose he moved on to the "Highest Bidder" which is what you suggest Hastings will be guilty of.

I was just wondering why it was ok when you did it, but not the correct way to run a club when we do?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, thepimp007 said:

Leigh also wont the championship at a canter when Rowley was in charge but his limitations held them back in the super 8s. The similarity is there. I want Toronto to succeed and feel they will offer a great deal to SL not just on the pitch either. All I am getting at is I feel a more experienced coach would have had a less blinkered eye on recruitment would have had them in a position to go up without the need for the MPG. 

Like I tried alluding to I wasn;t talking about onfield ability when I said they looked more of a team, I meant as a cohesive unit and players had more of an understanding of each other, but maybe thats down to the amount of changes they have made throughout the season.

The other point was Kayakman was claiming Torontos signings for the 8s were loyal to Toronto, yet Hastings couldn't be loyal to Salford. I was just pointing out it was a ridiculous notion

Toronto have had a lot of early and mid season changes so it's understandable that they are less cohesive, particularly given a number of ex Leigh players are in there. I don't think the Rowley recruitment policy was bad - why wouldn't he go after players he knew and he could convince about the project - it was a big gamble for a lot of players, leaving the relative comfort and security of Leigh and taking a step into the unknown. Those players clearly trusted him - it would have been a lot harder to convince others who didn't know him so well. In the past year, on the back of the proven success of Toronto, they've been able to attract players from all over, and the team has transitioned.

I don't get why a lot of people have such a strong negativity towards Rowley. I think he's done pretty well, whether he can lead them to promotion is up for debate, but it's not conclusive either way and they may still get promoted without the MPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Big Red Keev said:

You seem to have taken issue with the fact that we signed Jackson Hastings just to stay up, whereas in truth we signed him on a short term basis as we had just lost Jack Littlejohn to long term injury and had no cover in the halfs.

Didn't you sign Mason Caton-Brown through to the end of the season to replace Greg Worthington who was injured? 

Ironically by all accounts you outbid Salford to do so. 

I suppose he moved on to the "Highest Bidder" which is what you suggest Hastings will be guilty of.

I was just wondering why it was ok when you did it, but not the correct way to run a club when we do?

 

They also out bid Salford for Matty Russell a few weeks earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Sure I can...just did.  He was brought in for a few games and he will then be off...a hired gun.  Now someone said different on here and I hope that I was wrong but we will see....do you think he will be at Salford this time next year?...maybe , and if so I was wrong.  But that has yet to be proven.

All of the Toronto signing are/were  long term in nature....the players are very loyal to the Wolfpack....just ask them?  I didn't know you could read the minds of the Toronto players and how they feel about loyalty to the Club?

And as per you comments to DoubleD about the progress of the team, their playoff performances, etc.  That chapter of the story has yet to be written and I, for one, am not counting them out.  

You must have a crystal ball of something Magi.

You talk total male genitals, so your last signing before the 8s, Mason Caton Brown, how long was he signed for? Is he more loyal to Toronto than Hastings is to Salford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Toronto have had a lot of early and mid season changes so it's understandable that they are less cohesive, particularly given a number of ex Leigh players are in there. I don't think the Rowley recruitment policy was bad - why wouldn't he go after players he knew and he could convince about the project - it was a big gamble for a lot of players, leaving the relative comfort and security of Leigh and taking a step into the unknown. Those players clearly trusted him - it would have been a lot harder to convince others who didn't know him so well. In the past year, on the back of the proven success of Toronto, they've been able to attract players from all over, and the team has transitioned.

I don't get why a lot of people have such a strong negativity towards Rowley. I think he's done pretty well, whether he can lead them to promotion is up for debate, but it's not conclusive either way and they may still get promoted without the MPG

I think the thing with Rowley is both his coached sides have played the same way and if a team has put up a good fight and stifled them the thuggery starts. Leigh lost a lot of good well wishers due to it, Toronto have had exactly the same traits albeit a bit less recently. It cant be a coincidence! I just think he is extremely limited for such a big job/project

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, thepimp007 said:

I think the thing with Rowley is both his coached sides have played the same way and if a team has put up a good fight and stifled them the thuggery starts. Leigh lost a lot of good well wishers due to it, Toronto have had exactly the same traits albeit a bit less recently. It cant be a coincidence! I just think he is extremely limited for such a big job/project

I think there's an element of that, but I don't have a major issue with that. I think the bigger issue at Leigh was developing the attitude that everyone is against them - it works well to an extent to bring cohesiveness but as you say it loses well wishers. Catalans have developed a similar attitude, particularly against officials which will have the same effect of losing goodwill amongst latent fans.

Rowley does need to develop other ways of winning and he may learn to do so. It will be a big test over the coming weeks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thepimp007 said:

I think the thing with Rowley is both his coached sides have played the same way and if a team has put up a good fight and stifled them the thuggery starts. Leigh lost a lot of good well wishers due to it, Toronto have had exactly the same traits albeit a bit less recently. It cant be a coincidence! I just think he is extremely limited for such a big job/project

Leigh haven’t done so badly regarding fisticuffs and discipline since Rowley left either.

They aren’t alone though in trying to distract opposition by strongarm tactics.  Many clubs try it, sometimes it works sometimes not.  If he has coached that. He isn’t alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thepimp007 said:

You talk total male genitals, so your last signing before the 8s, Mason Caton Brown, how long was he signed for? Is he more loyal to Toronto than Hastings is to Salford

We like him and want him to stay for the long term...same with Matty Russell.   They are both very loyal to Toronto and love the city and the fans.

Share this post


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

We like him and want him to stay for the long term...same with Matty Russell.   They are both very loyal to Toronto and love the city and the fans.

Since the League restructure occurred and the Super eights/Qualifiers were introduced all clubs have made signings to strengthen before the business end of the season. 

The very nature of the qualifiers means that it is difficult to commit to long term contracts, with contracts being deemed null and void in the event of relegation.

Why you insist on claiming some none existent moral high ground is as inexplicable as your assumption that Mason Caton-Brown is anymore loyal to TWP than Jackson Hastings is to Salford.

The major difference between these 2 players is that one will have far more contract offers for next season than the other.

Share this post


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

I think there's an element of that, but I don't have a major issue with that. I think the bigger issue at Leigh was developing the attitude that everyone is against them - it works well to an extent to bring cohesiveness but as you say it loses well wishers. Catalans have developed a similar attitude, particularly against officials which will have the same effect of losing goodwill amongst latent fans.

Rowley does need to develop other ways of winning and he may learn to do so. It will be a big test over the coming weeks

Totally agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

Leigh haven’t done so badly regarding fisticuffs and discipline since Rowley left either.

They aren’t alone though in trying to distract opposition by strongarm tactics.  Many clubs try it, sometimes it works sometimes not.  If he has coached that. He isn’t alone.

To be fair I haven't seen as much of it being a Bulls fan I can only go off our games against them prior, and also when they were on TV and the forums where people were going mad about the tactics when their side played them

Share this post


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

We like him and want him to stay for the long term...same with Matty Russell.   They are both very loyal to Toronto and love the city and the fans.

There is no point debating with you at all. The fact you are saying they are both loyal to toronto being signed for the same length of time as Hastings, then slate Hastings for signing for the same length of time. Maybe one day you will learn how to debate reasonably when you properly get a grip of everything rugby league

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thepimp007 said:

There is no point debating with you at all. The fact you are saying they are both loyal to toronto being signed for the same length of time as Hastings, then slate Hastings for signing for the same length of time. Maybe one day you will learn how to debate reasonably when you properly get a grip of everything rugby league

Looks like I just won the debate!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Big Red Keev said:

The major difference between these 2 players is that one will have far more contract offers for next season than the other.

Caton Brown was brought in to solidify the backs long term and build the club up...this is a long term project.  The team is moving upwards in the Leagues and standings.  He is a clean player.

The other was brought in as a hired goon gun for a few games to help Salford artificially stay up in SL.  The team was moving downwards and at the risk  of relegation.  He is a dirty player as evidenced by his suspension and behaviours on the  field.

THESE are the major differences between the two players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2018 at 12:53 PM, Ant said:

Didn't he get the 3 matches reduced to 2 because of the red card? 

 

The disciplinary is an absolute shambles. Absolutely zero consistency and some hefty club bias on show for a year or two now

Bias towards who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Looks like I just won the debate!

No you didn't at all. This is the last time I am replying. Whatever the reasons Hastings is here, the fact remains he was signed to the same deal as Caton-Brown. Yet Caton-Brown is loyal you cannot get loyal to a club in that minimal time scale. If you believe he can become so you are more deluded than your rants make you out to be. He chose Toronto for more money that is as far as his loyalty takes him. Just because you have a different personal opinion of Hastings it doesn't change the deals being the same. You signed Caton Brown to help you get up the way Salford signed Hastings to help them stay up.

Also your rant above about him being a goon gun to help them stay up, tells me you are scared Toronto won't go up and are getting your excuses in

Edited by thepimp007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, thepimp007 said:

No you didn't at all. This is the last time I am replying. Whatever the reasons Hastings is here, the fact remains he was signed to the same deal as Caton-Brown. Yet Caton-Brown is loyal you cannot get loyal to a club in that minimal time scale. If you believe he can become so you are more deluded than your rants make you out to be. He chose Toronto for more money that is as far as his loyalty takes him. Just because you have a different personal opinion of Hastings it doesn't change the deals being the same. You signed Caton Brown to help you get up the way Salford signed Hastings to help them stay up.

Also your rant above about him being a goon gun to help them stay up, tells me you are scared Toronto won't go up and are getting your excuses in

I didn't know you were privy to the details of both of their contracts?...or are you just looking into that crystal ball again and making stuff up?  Popular belief is an opinion; not a fact.  Answer honestly, "Are you privy to the wording of their contracts?"  If not, you don't know so don't pretend you do.

Do you have personal knowledge of why Canton Brown chose Toronto?  You certainly infer that you do and, if so, I stand corrected.  But I think you are just making this stuff up.

If Toronto goes up, they go up.  If Toronto doesn't go up, they don't go up.  This has nothing to do with Hastings being a goon....the ref and tribunal saw it my way; hence the suspension.   Thats a fact, plain and simple.

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 Yearbook 2018/19 - Order Now


Rugby League World - Nov 2018

Rugby League World - Nov 2018



League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday