Posts posted by Dave T
35 minutes ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:
Got my ticket for the Warrington game. Be my first game at the HJ and I'm wondering what the parking's like, I know that we are warned not to use the Tesco's car park as they are known to clamp.
There is a car park around 75 yards away, costs about 3 quid. Wasteland basically between train station and ground. Perfectly fine, I park there regularly.
Few car parks in town with reasonable pricing, maybe 10 to 15 min walk.
44 minutes ago, Eddie said:
If it’s anything like the rlwc they’ll say how pleased they are with ticket sales, and there’ll be 6,000 there.
Or last year's England match where all seats were sold out but only around half of them had bums in them.
Ultimately all RL can do is be the best version of itself.
So far this season we have put on a. Great show in front of decent crowds in nice grounds, with the odd exception.
We have brought in professional people, and the talk is all about driving club standards up.
The narrative has been taken back from the naysayers and we've just broken the SL record for attendances.
Do the right things, the results will follow, generally speaking.
1 hour ago, Jughead said:
I’ve no idea what Batchelor or Smithies records are like but I think it’s something like 9 suspensions (ten now) in eighteen months for Knowles. I would hope that this would be more of a contributing factor in the length of the ban instead of severity of injury to an opponent.
That brings me on to my next point. Dudson has a headbutt charge and a punching charge in the past two seasons, which makes the five games for attacking someone on the ground very light.
My gut feel is that 5 matches for these incidents is fine (they are pretty serious bans) , but there are questions about process that should be answered.
Dudson was charged with E which has 4-6. It is surprising that with his record he hasn't received the maximum. I'm not sure what could be used as a mitigant in that incident.
I'm not sure Knowles or anyone associated with him can have any complaints though. 5 matches for a tackle that rules a player out for 12m and is his 9th charge in 10 months feels about right.
An issue I have with Knowles' punisent is that the press release doesn't acknowledge why he has been sentenced outside of the punishment range. Surely taht should be part of the communication. We shouldn't have to wait to read the small print tucked away in the hearing notes on the disciplinary page on the RFL site.
We have Philbin getting 2matches for a D, Knowles getting 5 for a D, and Dudson getting 5 for an E. That really should be explained to fans/media. Obviously we can work it out in terms of past record, but our comms should be far better.
15 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:
Think bigger Dave, Wire said£70m was fair
We can all just make numbers up. I say £100m a year.
1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:
That's a matter of refinement from now, not revolution.
The current system means that a ban has to be earned. Your punishment likewise should fit your crime. As in society, that means some people get off lightly, but others are rightly not punished too harshly.
I think it's rare that an incident that is not a red card offence should by itself result in a match ban. Referees aren't that stupid. When non-Red card offences do result in bans, that should be because the MRP can look more broadly, rather than the single match.
I don't think players were getting banned for non red-card offences. I think we got in a bit of a mess because we bottled sending them off. So refs bottled it, but the disciplinary still did their job.
Now we just leave them on the field, and don't ban them afterwards either.
There is a reason these late hits in particular are becoming part and parcel of the game imho.
2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
The actions would be worthy of red cards if RL had a football-style approach. But, as a red card in rugby is not the same as one in football, we don't.
The balance is therefore found in a banning process like this.
If we stopped bans then we'd need to have a lot more in-play yellow and red cards.
Indeed. We have just decided to condone more foul play. Nothing more, nothing less.
4 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:
I understand you are probably right, but the RFL rightly hammers/clamps down on a player over an inappropriate insult yet one player punches a prone players unable to defend himself and another player with a track record puts another players career at risk with an illegal tackle. Out of all those instances only one player was physically injured yet the game does not show willing to stamp out the tackle or the punch.
5 matches is a substantial ban. I don't see the argument that Dudson has not been heavily (rightly) punished.
Similar with Knowles, they have shown they are taking it serious by banning him higher than the grading.
Mcguire's falls into the category of more serious incidents, like gambling and drug offences.
6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
I'm not saying it can't be refined. But players not doing actions worthy of red cards shouldn't routinely be getting banned for future matches without good reason.
That could have been addressed under the old system. In fact it was - the season before had the same system and wasn't as harsh.
This system has just made the same offence be punished less severely.
A Grade D offence is a Grade D offence whether the ref saw it that way on the pitch or not.
1 minute ago, gingerjon said:
What is it with Bower and Shaw being so upset with serious foul play being punished?
1 hour ago, ELBOWSEYE said:
Mcguire was given a ban higher than the band. The RFL came down hard on him, hopefully Dudson and Knowles will get similar treatment, both IMO were as or not more serious as what Mcguire did.
I thought Mcguire was charged at F which is 6 plus. He got 7.
Knowles has been given 5 matches though at grade D.
18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
I'm not so sure I agree.
I think the new system means that if there wasn't cause to send a player off in a game, then there should be a significant amount of reasoning behind subsequently banning a player. Effectively a ban works as a series of Red Cards from the start of a match, if the initial incident didn't warrant a red card, it seems illogical, unless something has been missed, to start doing otherwise. Bans should be for incidents either too major for a red card, or not punished sufficiently, if at all, during a game.
This also therefore refrains from undermining referees on the pitch following MRP decisions - simple penalties or yellow cards aren't unnecessarily and consistently turning into multi match bans.
MRP's should be able to take into account previous behaviour and then punish appropriately and if necessary.
The new system doesn't mean that. It is simply a lowering of the grading.
8 minutes ago, LeeF said:
Just remember this is what the players, coaches, owners, journalists and fans apparently all wanted.
As we have both agreed previously it was a poor change rather than getting the players and coaches to amend their ways
It's funny how they highlight a fine to try and gaslight us into thinking that this isn't a softening of the disciplinary, despite the fa t there was always a fine that accompanied a ban anyway.
So last season, based on poor record and a Grade D offence, Knowles would get 5 matches. This season, it's 3 matches.
NORMAL SUSPENSION RANGE
PREVIOUS SUSPENSION RANGE
0 – Fine
0 – 1
Fine - 1
1 – 2
2 – 3
3 – 5
4 – 8
6+ or period suspension (and fine)
8+ or period suspension
Grade Normal Suspension Range A NFA - Fine B Fine – 1 match C 1–2 matches D 2-3 matches E 4-6 matches F 6+ or suspension period
1 minute ago, bobbruce said:
I’m just making an assumption as I’m sure I’ve seen players get reduced bans for previous good record. That may just be something the MRP say to reduce bans though.
I think it's the difference between getting the low end and the high end in each band. So you won't get a higher band, but you'll get the higher end of the grading of that offence.
Just now, bobbruce said:
I’m pretty sure past record is taken into account over here too. The problem is about bans are too low to start with and have even been reduced this season.
Agreed. We've made a bit of a balls up of the disciplinary tbh. The system was clear last year, it's bands overlap and are too low now.
3 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:
I like Leigh’s response “ Anything less than £50m per season we should tell them No Thanks and go it alone, ride the pain and come out stronger”
I'm not sure turning down, say, a £200m 5 year deal makes sense at all.
In the last 10 months Morgan Knowles has been found guilty either by MRP or tribunal 8 times. This will be the 9th.
At what stage do we address that there is a real issue here.
7 hours ago, Old Frightful said:
In the past Hull KR fans have occupied both the North Stand and the Upper Tier of the West Stand with little in the way of incidents as far as I can recall. Now only about half of the seats in the North Stand are available to them which meant more of them in the Upper West. I have no idea why last Friday was any different to when they've previously occupied that part of the ground but things were very different, unfortunately.
May have been lucky that these specific things haven't happened in previous years, but this fixture has seen more than its share of unsavoury incidents. It does seem unnecessary, the ground is big enough to make necessary arrangements.
Of course the bigger issue is nobjeads not behaving, but that will never go away unfortunately.
in The General Rugby League Forum
The vast majority of the men's World Cup was underwhelming really.
There was a lot to like about the whole concept of RLWC 2021 in its entirety though, and Dutton was a major part of that obviously.
Good luck to him.