Frank Pritchard have the RFL shot themselves in the foot

[westhuller]

Must have been a hell of a slap. The summary of the submission states 'Mr Pritchard is reaching towards his opponent who has lost some height'.

Reading between the lines of the reason given for the decision, I think he would have got off with a caution but for the fact that he's been done four times in the last five seasons for 'similar offences'.

It's a shame Hull's good intentions have ended up with them getting a kick in the knackers in return but the RFL panel were put in a difficult position. I still think Hull did the right thing and I hope they'll do the same if the situation arises again.

Samoas next game is Fiji at home October 8th apparently, Frank may be busy on that night.

[Ullman]

Samoas next game is Fiji at home October 8th apparently, Frank may be busy on that night.

As long as he's not expecting to beat me or our kid on the Kentucky Derby or the Penalty Spot.

[flyingking]

Samoas next game is Fiji at home October 8th apparently, Frank may be busy on that night.

Is he being lined up for the next series of Strictly?

[Ullman]

Is he being lined up for the next series of Strictly?

Craig would have given him a two game ban for poor hand technique.

[Scubby]

He could have turned his ankle running around with kids on a primary school development visit. Where do you draw the line? My take is that both players probably had the release as part of their contract agreement. They are the poster boys for Tonga and Samoa. It happens, right up to billion pound premier league clubs. The Africa Cup of Nations comes right in the middle of the season.

[brooza]

The NRL grading was 75 demerit points, which is 3/4 of the way to a 1 match ban, so it was on closer to the 1 than 0 in the 0-1 scale
 

This case relates to an incident placed on report in the recent Samoa v Tonga match. Incidents from that match were dealt with using the system in place for the World Cub Series, whereby it is reviewed by the Match Review Panel of the host country in this case the NRL, but that players are then sent back to the country where they play their domestic rugby to be dealt with under that judiciary system. The NRL Match Review Panel reviewed this incident as a Grade 1 Careless High Tackle. They based that decision on the fact that the force was only moderate, and the Mr Prithcard’s actions were careless. A Grade 1 offence carries 75 demerit points in the NRL’s Judiciary Code of Conduct. 100 points is the equivalent to a 1 match ban so that suggests the severity of the incident in the eyes of the initial review panel. The RFL Match Review Panel were then assigned the task of translating the NRL MRP finding into a charge under the RFL Guidelines, the RFL’s MRP agreed with the assessment of the incident by the NRL MRP and also noted that Mr Pritchard is reaching towards his opponent who has lost some height, and the contact is open-handed. Based on those factors the MRP issued a Grade A charge of a careless high tackle.

Reasons for Decision

The Panel state they have taken into account the submissions by Mr Tony, however they cannot ignore the fact the player has been charged for similar offences 4 times in the last 5 seasons. For this reason they believe a 1 match suspension and £300 fine are appropriate.

 

-

[brooza]

Must have been a hell of a slap. The summary of the submission states 'Mr Pritchard is reaching towards his opponent who has lost some height'[/size].

 

Reading between the lines of the reason given for the decision, I think he would have got off with a caution but for the fact that he's been done four times in the last five seasons for 'similar offences'.

 

It's a shame Hull's good intentions have ended up with them getting a kick in the knackers in return but the RFL panel were put in a difficult position. I still think Hull did the right thing and I hope they'll do the same if the situation arises again.

That's exaclt the reason

[Ullman]

He could have turned his ankle running around with kids on a primary school development visit. Where do you draw the line? My take is that both players probably had the release as part of their contract agreement. They are the poster boys for Tonga and Samoa. It happens, right up to billion pound premier league clubs. The Africa Cup of Nations comes right in the middle of the season.

Lee Radford stated that was definitely not the case in his post match interview. The players asked the club if they could be released to play in the international fixture. The club said yes, we won't stand in your way. it was as simple as that.

[MamaKangaroo]

How about if your club is decent enough to release you for an international game then don't do anything that may warrant a ban.....

Lots of calls for the RFL to be lenient here cos it's unfair to Hull - but what about the players responsability in all this?

[Scubby]

Lee Radford stated that was definitely not the case in his post match interview. The players asked the club if they could be released to play in the international fixture. The club said yes, we won't stand in your way. it was as simple as that.

 

Fair enough. It is actually a RLIF rule that clubs have to release players for internationals if selected believe it or not. Thing is, clubs have decided to completely ignore it (particularly NRL teams) and the RLIF doesn't have the balls to pull anyone up.

 

The rule should be you have to release the player, if you don't then the player sits out the next game. I've said it before Hull will get the benefit long term with the service these two great players will give.

[Ullman]

Fair enough. It is actually a RLIF rule that clubs have to release players for internationals if selected believe it or not. Thing is, clubs have decided to completely ignore it (particularly NRL teams) and the RLIF doesn't have the balls to pull anyone up.

 

The rule should be you have to release the player, if you don't then the player sits out the next game. I've said it before Hull will get the benefit long term with the service these two great players will give.

Yes, I think Hull realised that it was not only in the interests of the game as a whole but also in their interests as a club over the longer term.

[wackojacko]

Fair enough. It is actually a RLIF rule that clubs have to release players for internationals if selected believe it or not. Thing is, clubs have decided to completely ignore it (particularly NRL teams) and the RLIF doesn't have the balls to pull anyone up.

 

The rule should be you have to release the player, if you don't then the player sits out the next game. I've said it before Hull will get the benefit long term with the service these two great players will give.

 

We need an RLIF with some teeth.

[westhuller]

Yes, I think Hull realised that it was not only in the interests of the game as a whole but also in their interests as a club over the longer term.

It's well known we are in the market for a standoff Motu Tony has been in Aus looking. We already know that he has very good connections and I think Hulls decision to release Frank and Sika could benefit us with any other quality islander internationals who we approach.

[Scubby]

It's well known we are in the market for a standoff Motu Tony has been in Aus looking. We already know that he has very good connections and I think Hulls decision to release Frank and Sika could benefit us with any other quality islander internationals who we approach.

 

Absolutely, keep big Frank happy and he will repay you 10x over. This next 2 years could be a pretty exciting time to be a Hull fan.

[westhuller]

Radford has said in press as soon as he knew that Frank was going in front of the RFL panel he would get a ban.

[Scubby]

Radford has said in press as soon as he knew that Frank was going in front of the RFL panel he would get a ban.

 

Crazy, if it had been a two match series he would have gone up in front of an international disciplinary committee and been cleared to play the following week.

 

Ironically, Gallen drops and elbow to the head of McGuire the week before the Kangaroo test and is ruled 'nothing to see here' and he is just warned about his conduct in future,

[westhuller]

Crazy, if it had been a two match series he would have gone up in front of an international disciplinary committee and been cleared to play the following week.

Ironically, Gallen drops and elbow to the head of McGuire the week before the Kangaroo test and is ruled 'nothing to see here' and he is just warned about his conduct in future,

That's my point no consistency.

[bobbruce]

That's irrelevant, let's deal with facts, it was a grade A charge nothing else either a warning or 1 game. The whole scenario you came up with would have put the whole situation into a different context and no one would have been aggrieved if he had got a ban, the RFL could have used a bit of common sense here, Hull should feel rightly that they have been unfairly penalised twice now for doing the right thing.

The RFL have to go through the process and deal with it properly as they would any other game. They can't just go we'll let him off because Hull were good letting him play.