What should the referee have done?

[3owls]

Interesting to read that this was the first time that he has been sent off in 13+ years, so his record to date should stand him in good stead. SoS I predict.

What has his previous record got to do with it? If you throw three or four punches at a grounded defenceless player you should be banned it's as simple as that. The only time a previous record should be considered is when the amount of intent is debatable. The intent from Radford was to hurt a player therefore he should be banned.

[3owls]

Fantastic. The minority are clearly always in the right, the vast majority, clearly always in the wrong, including Jonathon Davies and Dave Woods, professionals who clearly know nothing about the game in spite of having watched it for years and having played it to test match level, in Davies' case.

The majority are not always in the wrong but the vast majority have an axe to grind, such as yourself. That makes you and the other 8 out of ten not in the best position to judge. The most sense spoken on this thread comes from Dave T and kenilworth Tiger and it's no suprise they are looking at it logically and impartially. The RFL will see it for what it is and judge accordingly, they won't have black and white tinted spectacles on. I will accept their decision as the right one when Radford is banned.

[3owls]

Fantastic. The minority are clearly always in the right, the vast majority, clearly always in the wrong, including Jonathon Davies and Dave Woods, professionals who clearly know nothing about the game in spite of having watched it for years and having played it to test match level, in Davies' case.

The majority are not always in the wrong but the vast majority have an axe to grind, such as yourself. That makes you and the other 8 out of ten not in the best position to judge. The most sense spoken on this thread comes from Dave T and kenilworth Tiger and it's no suprise they are looking at it logically and impartially. The RFL will see it for what it is and judge accordingly, they won't have black and white tinted spectacles on. I will accept their decision as the right one when Radford is banned.

[Roy Boy]

What has his previous record got to do with it? If you throw three or four punches at a grounded defenceless player you should be banned it's as simple as that. The only time a previous record should be considered is when the amount of intent is debatable. The intent from Radford was to hurt a player therefore he should be banned.

The big difference was if Bailey had attacked Radford on the ground, Radford would have got up and slotted him!

So you think when players fly into a tackle they are not trying to hurt the opposition?

You do talk a lot of "dangly bits" (in keeping with your non-swearing mode!).

You don't appear to have made much comment about the Bailey attempted head-butt on Long?

I think you'll find an act that is considered far worse than punching

Players have stayed on the pitch this season for as much or even more than Radford dished out to Bailey.

I do hope Hull FC cite Bailey for the attempted head butt (even though it made Sean Long laugh!) and justice is served.......

P.S. was Mick sat with you?

[Roy Boy]

It's playing up! double post

Edited September 6, 2010 by Roy Boy

[amm]

The majority are not always in the wrong but the vast majority have an axe to grind, such as yourself. That makes you and the other 8 out of ten not in the best position to judge. The most sense spoken on this thread comes from Dave T and kenilworth Tiger and it's no suprise they are looking at it logically and impartially. The RFL will see it for what it is and judge accordingly, they won't have black and white tinted spectacles on. I will accept their decision as the right one when Radford is banned.

there's got to be Whiskas joke in there..but I'm struggling

[Roy Boy]

there's got to be Whiskas joke in there..but I'm struggling

pmsl

[jackknife]

well done to lee for twatin bailey fekkin hate that guy, just watched the punch up again on you tube did anyone see how bailey tried to stick nut on sean long as he tried to keep them apart if that would of been seen he would of walked aswell

posted this on wrong thread 1st

[Ullman]

RFL Press Release: Radford to face RFL Disciplinary Committee

Hull FC second row Lee Radford will appear before the RFL Disciplinary Committee on Tuesday following an incident in Round 27 of the Engage Super League.

Radford has been charged with a Grade A offence for punching Ryan Bailey in the 10th minute of Saturday

[Ullman]

What has his previous record got to do with it? If you throw three or four punches at a grounded defenceless player you should be banned it's as simple as that. The only time a previous record should be considered is when the amount of intent is debatable. The intent from Radford was to hurt a player therefore he should be banned.

Check the RFL's disciplinary guidelines.

Previous good conduct is on the list of mitigating circumstances to be taken into account in the sentencing process, along with provocation.

[Old Frightful]

The majority are not always in the wrong but the vast majority have an axe to grind, such as yourself. That makes you and the other 8 out of ten not in the best position to judge. The most sense spoken on this thread comes from Dave T and kenilworth Tiger and it's no suprise they are looking at it logically and impartially. The RFL will see it for what it is and judge accordingly, they won't have black and white tinted spectacles on. I will accept their decision as the right one when Radford is banned.

Interesting that four of Bailey's critics posting on this thread are the following...

Wiltshire Rhino, Optimus, Weary Rhino and Exiled Rhino.

Do they have the aforementioned black and white tinted spectacles on?, or could it just possibly be that theirs aren't tinted blue and yellow?

You've picked two posters on this thread that suit your agenda and ignored all the rest including Leeds fans.

As for me, take a look at my post history. You'll find I'm one of the least biased Hull fans on here. I say things as I see them and am not afraid to criticise my club when I feel the need, which sometimes gets me stick from other Hull fans on here.

Anyway, you keep on defending Ryan Bailey, as I said elsewhere, he won you the game on Saturday.

But with all the publicity surrounding the incident, and also the discussions that many people in RL are having about whether or not Lee Radford should have been sent off, I hope it heightens Referee's attention to Bailey's style of play, and results in him being watched a bit more carefully in future.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

well done to lee for twatin bailey fekkin hate that guy, just watched the punch up again on you tube did anyone see how bailey tried to stick nut on sean long as he tried to keep them apart if that would of been seen he would of walked aswell

posted this on wrong thread 1st

It was seen. You can clearly see Ian Smith in the picture looking at Bailey, and he even blows the whistle again after it happens. Still, nothing.

[Old Frightful]

What has his previous record got to do with it? If you throw three or four punches at a grounded defenceless player you should be banned it's as simple as that. The only time a previous record should be considered is when the amount of intent is debatable. The intent from Radford was to hurt a player therefore he should be banned.

Can you tell me what Bailey's intentions were when he tried to headbutt Sean Long?

[Lee]

Can you tell me what Bailey's intentions were when he tried to headbutt Sean Long?

Peck on the cheek?

[Old Frightful]

Peck on the cheek?

Must admit, Longy's haircut does it for me as well...

[Lee]

Must admit, Longy's haircut does it for me as well...

Anyway, 2 matches, season over for your boy

[Old Frightful]

Anyway, 2 matches, season over for your boy

More like one, sadly.

[yehhoo]

Anyway, 2 matches, season over for your boy

Grade A offence =1 match ban at most

And that little lad of 3 stone called Bailey struggling like a mad man to get up arms and legs flaying about ,then Radford gets up see lack of effort then.stay down hug the ground less for Lee to hit

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Anyway, 2 matches, season over for your boy

He'll get one maximum for a Grade A offence, most likely a sending off sufficient, IMO.

So when Crusaders beat Huddersfield, Wigan beat Leeds and Hull beat Rovers we shall hopefully see Radford vs Bailey 2!

[Wiltshire Rhino]

He'll get one maximum for a Grade A offence, most likely a sending off sufficient, IMO.

So when Crusaders beat Huddersfield, Wigan beat Leeds and Hull beat Rovers we shall hopefully see Radford vs Bailey 2!

I'll be up for that although I would prefer to win at The Piedome. But as beating Wigan won't happen so I'll go for Leeds to beat Hull and Radford to smash Bailey if he can get close cos Bailey won't go near him.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Wiltshire Rhino

[Roy Boy]

I'll be up for that although I would prefer to win at The Piedome. But as beating Wigan won't happen so I'll go for Leeds to beat Hull and Radford to smash Bailey if he can get close cos Bailey won't go near him.

:lol:

[Lee]

He'll get one maximum for a Grade A offence, most likely a sending off sufficient, IMO.

So we're saying Griffin and Fieldens was worse that that?

Unbelievable

[Wellsy4HullFC]

So we're saying Griffin and Fieldens was worse that that?

Unbelievable

Can you give Fielden a "sending off sufficient"? No, because he wasn't sent off. Radford has effectively already had a one game ban, and whether you like it or not, it will be taken into consideration. And with it being a Grade A offence, he can't be out for more than a game.

Seems most of the Leeds fans want him out for more than 2 games so he doesn't get another shot against big hard man Bailey!

[3owls]

Check the RFL's disciplinary guidelines.

Previous good conduct is on the list of mitigating circumstances to be taken into account in the sentencing process, along with provocation.

So you're allowed to break someones nose, shatter someones cheekbone or give someone a little old broken jaw if you have a previous good record? I don't think so. Bailey received a cut to his eye from a cowardly cheap shot while he was on the floor. Radfords previous conduct has absolutely nothing to do with his cowardly actions on saturday.

[3owls]

.

[Anyway, you keep on defending Ryan Bailey, as I said elsewhere, he won you the game on Saturday. ]

Where have i defended Ryan Bailey? You're problem with me is that i'm not defending Radford and there's a big difference. It didn't matter who Radford was hitting on saturday it was cowardly and he deserved to be sent off. I don't mind players going toe to toe but Radford took cheap shots, end of story. Anyway, you seem to have changed your tune, it's not so long back you were screaming blue murder when Carl Ablett hit Tomkins when he was in no position to defend himself. You could at least be consistent.