Radford Wins Appeal

[westhuller]

Lee Radford has won his appeal againt his one match suspension

here

Cannot wait for the game now

[Old Frightful]

I always had my faith in the RFL Disciplinary panel, all good men, honest and true.

What say you 3owls?

[Padge]

Common sense has prevailed.

[murbus]

From the website:

[deluded pom?]

Can we appeal and get Bailey banned? It would be worth 300 quid.

[my missus]

what a pile of ######, one rule for one and lets make up something for another, the rugby league is pathetic.

[Ullman]

From the website:

[Ullman]

Common sense has prevailed.

Indeed so.

[Ullman]

I always had my faith in the RFL Disciplinary panel, all good men, honest and true.

What say you 3owls?

That due process has been followed meticulously and that the outcome is a fair one?

[Dave T]

On the face of it seems strange, given, as you say, that they were already aware of the mitigating factors.

Perhaps the appeal is heard by a different panel.

I think that is the case.

It will be interesting to read the notes when they are published, but based on the fact that he was sent off after only 9 minutes then in effect he and his team were punished for one game already, and that is often seen as enough punishment, maybe the 2nd panel went with that view.

[Dave T]

Here are some of the notes from the initial ban hearing:

The panel have taken a great deal of time to come to the decision. You have been given credit for your long unblemished record in the game and the fact that you have pleaded guilty. In our view however this was a serious matter, virtually an assault by punching a player four times to the head who was on the ground, and although your opponent was allowed to continue with the game he did sustain a blood injury.

Sounds like it was touch and go, and the comments almost invite an appeal.

[deluded pom?]

Here are some of the notes from the initial ban hearing:

The panel have taken a great deal of time to come to the decision. You have been given credit for your long unblemished record in the game and the fact that you have pleaded guilty. In our view however this was a serious matter, virtually an assault by punching a player four times to the head who was on the ground, and although your opponent was allowed to continue with the game he did sustain a blood injury.

Sounds like it was touch and go, and the comments almost invite an appeal.

I hope these people never judge a boxing match

[tim2]

This doesn't make sense. If Radford was provoked by Bailey, how come Bailey had no case to answer for the contact with the elbow? It was either accidental or it wasn't.

If it was accidental then Radford was out of order and should be banned (although he missed nearly a whole game anyway). If not, Bailey should be up on a charge.

Still, holding 2 contradictory views at once is quite common in RL!!

[Dave T]

This doesn't make sense. If Radford was provoked by Bailey, how come Bailey had no case to answer for the contact with the elbow? It was either accidental or it wasn't.

If it was accidental then Radford was out of order and should be banned (although he missed nearly a whole game anyway). If not, Bailey should be up on a charge.

Still, holding 2 contradictory views at once is quite common in RL!!

That doesn't necessarily make sense. Just because he was provoked doesn't mean that the provocation deserved a ban. They didn't decide to call him up, so they thought it wasn't too serious.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I hope these people never judge a boxing match

Well these are the same people that decided Bailey had hit Radford with a forearm, rather than repeatedly with an elbow!

[Old Frightful]

Perhaps the appeal is heard by a different panel.

Indeed it was. Here they are....

This may of course be lost on some who haven't followed this forum recently....

[my missus]

it also seems using the elbow is ok these days as did wellens on a prone defenseless player in the cas game.

[HappyDave]

Can we appeal and get Bailey banned? It would be worth 300 quid.

Sound good to me. How much do we have to put in?

[JohnM]

Good grief! It was only a punch to his head. Its not as if it was anywhere important or useful to him!

[StevieM13]

The level of provocation Radford faced was nothing compared to that which Fielden was subjected to by Mason. Bailey wound Radford up within the rules of the game. Fielden was not dismissed, but Wigan still lost the game.

Ian Smith was entirely correct to send Radford off for an attack at the head of a player. Fielden was banned for one match for punching an opponent. He only connected properly once, on Mason's chin. The rescinding of this one match ban handed down to Radford brings the integrity of the disciplinary panel and it's procedures into serious doubt.

[3owls]

The level of provocation Radford faced was nothing compared to that which Fielden was subjected to by Mason. Bailey wound Radford up within the rules of the game. Fielden was not dismissed, but Wigan still lost the game.

Ian Smith was entirely correct to send Radford off for an attack at the head of a player. Fielden was banned for one match for punching an opponent. He only connected properly once, on Mason's chin. The rescinding of this one match ban handed down to Radford brings the integrity of the disciplinary panel and it's procedures into serious doubt.

The best reply on this thread bar none.

[Ullman]

The level of provocation Radford faced was nothing compared to that which Fielden was subjected to by Mason. Bailey wound Radford up within the rules of the game. Fielden was not dismissed, but Wigan still lost the game.

Ian Smith was entirely correct to send Radford off for an attack at the head of a player. Fielden was banned for one match for punching an opponent. He only connected properly once, on Mason's chin. The rescinding of this one match ban handed down to Radford brings the integrity of the disciplinary panel and it's procedures into serious doubt.

No it doesn't. It was absolutely the correct decision.

[3owls]

I always had my faith in the RFL Disciplinary panel, all good men, honest and true.

What say you 3owls?

Ha ha, it'll run forever this one. I think the most important factor is that the panel upheld the guilty decision, they backed the referee, they backed me, and they backed the 10%. Nothing changes, he deserved to be sent off and that's what the panel have confirmed. It's just a shame that contributors views are judged to be "contemptible" because they don't agree with a faction from this forum when in fact their views are endorsed by ex players that you cherished so dearly initially. It really doesn't bother me that his ban has been rescinded, he was sent off and the panel have subsequently decided that was punishment enough. I still think players personalities and club loyalties affected contributors judgement on this debate. Radford was sent off, he was found guilty and fined

[Wellsy4HullFC]

The level of provocation Radford faced was nothing compared to that which Fielden was subjected to by Mason. Bailey wound Radford up within the rules of the game. Fielden was not dismissed, but Wigan still lost the game.

Ian Smith was entirely correct to send Radford off for an attack at the head of a player. Fielden was banned for one match for punching an opponent. He only connected properly once, on Mason's chin. The rescinding of this one match ban handed down to Radford brings the integrity of the disciplinary panel and it's procedures into serious doubt.

Last time I checked, you weren't allowed to elbow a player in the head repeatedly. But what would I know? I'm only a referee.

And you can't compare Fielden to Radford, as Radford was sent off. You can't give a Sending Off Sufficient reply to Fielden, can you? Radford's punishment came from the field of play in the form of a red card early in a game that most likely cost his team 4th place in the league and the game itself. Fielden had 10 minutes rest.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Ha ha, it'll run forever this one. I think the most important factor is that the panel upheld the guilty decision, they backed the referee, they backed me, and they backed the 10%. Nothing changes, he deserved to be sent off and that's what the panel have confirmed. It's just a shame that contributors views are judged to be "contemptible" because they don't agree with a faction from this forum when in fact their views are endorsed by ex players that you cherished so dearly initially. It really doesn't bother me that his ban has been rescinded, he was sent off and the panel have subsequently decided that was punishment enough. I still think players personalities and club loyalties affected contributors judgement on this debate. Radford was sent off, he was found guilty and fined