Disciplinary changes - Tony Smith

[Lowdesert]

http://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_23072-smith-calls-for-disciplinary-debate.html

[Old Frightful]

Black and white rules eh?

I've always thought that.

[Dave T]

Doesnt really say much, but seems to be referring to the cannonball tackle in particular.

Hard to argue with a call for discussion, seems a mature response.

[Exiled Wiganer]

What's his views on gouging? Just sayin'.

[Dave T]

Sure he dislikes it like the rest of us.

He doesnt tend to go to disciplinaries to argue against punishment of his players for foul play so we cant know his view for sure.

Maybe he could argue that it was a near perfect tackle though.

[Lowdesert]

Given Woods views on the Disciplinary process, maybe it's Smiths way of saying 'OK, you are open to discussion and improvements, so let's have some discussion, not just media speil'.

The 'grey' areas, IMO, are the speed of an 'act'. A tackler putting downwards pressure on the lower leg of a ball carrier, held by another/s, at a slow speed, would probably be missed. At speed it's a riot.

[Exiled Wiganer]

interestingly Clark had a low tackle looked at by the disciplinary - exonerated because of his momentum. It's a minefield this low tackling malarkey.

The disciplinary does a very good, transparent job. They are one of the few things that works well in our game.

[Oxford]

interestingly Clark had a low tackle looked at by the disciplinary - exonerated because of his momentum. It's a minefield this low tackling malarkey.

The disciplinary does a very good, transparent job. They are one of the few things that works well in our game.

I agree with you but I don't think the disciplinary is the problem but the gymnastic set of rules which when applied mean similar crimes get a huge variety of penalties. This is what causes the unrest, the different outcomes. It can't help but appear like some might be being treated differently or even favoured.

[Dave T]

interestingly Clark had a low tackle looked at by the disciplinary - exonerated because of his momentum. It's a minefield this low tackling malarkey.

The disciplinary does a very good, transparent job. They are one of the few things that works well in our game.

i tend to agree they do a good job, and i dont buy the inconsistency thing, ultimately every incident is different.

My issue in recent weeks is that they do appear to have given too much weight to mitigating factors and there appears to be a real tendancy to downgrade and reduce sentences. Going out of guidelines should be a real exception.

Take Justin Carney as an example, he has had various punishments for similar offences, they do little to really punish this behaviour.

I think discussions about sentencing guidelines are the main thing for me, pretty much any offence is just 1 or 2 matches. A couple of blokes losing their rag and having some fisticuffs and getting binned is a lesser offence than some of the spear tackles we are seeing imo but they will both just get 1 match in many cases.

My personal view is these things should be discussed and reviewed annually anyway.

[Exiled Wiganer]

If you take spear tackles and 3 man tackles, they can look horrific through a combination of the position of the tackled player and momentum. It is just so hard to work out what was nasty, or reckless, or careless. You. An change the tariffs but there is no correlation between cause and effect. Of course there should be consistency and it is paramount that players are protected. We need to be as scientific as we can and do as much research as we can. If it is the case gabby 3 man tackles result in severe injuries in a disproportionate number of cases then ban them. But let's do the analysis.

Having said that, I do not detect a high degree of inconsistency. Some isolated examples maybe, but nothing out of the reasonable range.

[sweaty craiq]

There is no consistency, injury caused has no impact on bans, some clubs and players are hit harder than others whereby some get looked at with a view to how can we punish them others how can we let them off. It is shambolic and a laughing stock, and is putting me off my sport. Kouk ash is right, we need a clear out of the lot of em, top to bottom including media presenters

[Exiled Wiganer]

There is no conspiracy - you have a predisposition for which you find evidence wherever you can.

[sweaty craiq]

Evidence is based on facts, otherwise it's not admissible

[Phil]

Evidence is based on facts, otherwise it's not admissible

So can you provide us with these facts?

[meast]

Black and white rules eh?

I've always thought that.

I thought the disciplinary played by Cherry and white rules

[Karl Carpenter]

Amazing that the anti Wigan comment only came on the 15th post!

[Dave T]

Amazing that the anti Wigan comment only came on the 15th post!

that's unfair i did have a cheeky dig at Shaun Wane in post 5!

[Mal]

Amazing that the anti Wigan comment only came on the 15th post!

 

Indeed, some remarkable restraint being shown.