This week's disciplinary...

[Old Frightful]

Come on now Dave,don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory,Old Forgetful will get another 20 posts out of this.

 

That's hardly likely to happen, I can't even recall what this thread's about.

 

In fact, it would appear that I can't even remember your name. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

I have hardly watched any rugby for a few weeks (during which it would appear Wigan have hardly played any) but the RFL disciplinary remains one of the few things we do well as a game. I can understand though the bus on the moon contingent imagining that Wigan are behind every decision.

[Teessidewire]

Acton 4 games, stupid by him but no injury. Soward previous week similar offence NFA - consistency in sentence......

There's mention about Acton's previous record.

[longboard]

Acton 4 games, stupid by him but no injury. Soward previous week similar offence NFA - consistency in sentence......

 

Similar?

[Dave T]

I have hardly watched any rugby for a few weeks (during which it would appear Wigan have hardly played any) but the RFL disciplinary remains one of the few things we do well as a game. I can understand though the bus on the moon contingent imagining that Wigan are behind every decision.

not really. One of the biggest names in our sport, a legend no less, now a coach of one of the top clubs said that this is the commentators fault, not the players. How could the disciplinary be suckered in like this?

[Old Frightful]

 I can understand though the bus on the moon contingent imagining that Wigan are behind every decision.

Eh? 

 

Someone's managed to get a bus to the moon but Wigan fans can't make it to Doncaster on a Friday night?  *

 

 

 

 

 

(*That was a joke btw, no offence intended. Apologies in advance to EW, Davo5, etc, etc...)

[sweaty craiq]

Similar?

I didn't use a capital S

[Saint Toppy]

The problem with Walsh is that having put the player in the air, he then dropped him. Thompson made a shoulder charge and caused an injury. No point in him saying that he didn't mean to injure the player, he did an illegal act and caused injury.

I've no problem with the Walsh ban as he put the  player in a dangerous position. The Thompson one I find totally farcical.

We see shoulder charges most weeks and unless its a shoulder to head contact then its just an on-field penalty. Whether you believe this to be right or wrong that's what we've had all season. They've deemed that Thompson made a shoulder charge, that's fine but it was clearly NOT a shoulder to head contact, it was shoulder to body.

If they've deemed him to have made a shoulder charge then they've deemed him to have lead with the shoulder not lead with the head (and 1st contact was with the shoulder). Therefore the head clash was purely accidental not intentional. The 'illegal' shoulder charge didn't cause the injury, that was the accidental head clash.

To be banned for a shoulder to body contact is laughable when throughout the rest of the year its resulted in nothing more than an on-field penalty. To ban him for an accidental head clash is even more ludicrous.

 

All players and clubs want is consistency and when you get rulings like the Thompson one it just makes the RFL disciplinary look like complete ass clowns with all the legitimacy of a Russian drug testing unit. They've made it even more farcical by having 2 ex-wigan players on the panel banning Saints players the week before they play wigan. Its like appointing Russians to run WADA.

[Exiled Wiganer]

And Jesus' face is on a potato!

[longboard]

I didn't use a capital S

 

I did.

[Dave T]

I've no problem with the Walsh ban as he put the  player in a dangerous position. The Thompson one I find totally farcical.

We see shoulder charges most weeks and unless its a shoulder to head contact then its just an on-field penalty. Whether you believe this to be right or wrong that's what we've had all season. They've deemed that Thompson made a shoulder charge, that's fine but it was clearly NOT a shoulder to head contact, it was shoulder to body.

If they've deemed him to have made a shoulder charge then they've deemed him to have lead with the shoulder not lead with the head (and 1st contact was with the shoulder). Therefore the head clash was purely accidental not intentional. The 'illegal' shoulder charge didn't cause the injury, that was the accidental head clash.

To be banned for a shoulder to body contact is laughable when throughout the rest of the year its resulted in nothing more than an on-field penalty. To ban him for an accidental head clash is even more ludicrous.

 

All players and clubs want is consistency and when you get rulings like the Thompson one it just makes the RFL disciplinary look like complete ass clowns with all the legitimacy of a Russian drug testing unit. They've made it even more farcical by having 2 ex-wigan players on the panel banning Saints players the week before they play wigan. Its like appointing Russians to run WADA.

Most high tackles each week are a penalty and nothing more. Some are worse and incur bans.

 

That is exactly the same here.

 

Because of the shoulder he then made head contact, the RFL said:

 

Having viewed the DVD on several occasions and taken into account the submissions made on behalf of the player this tribunal are satisfied this was a shoulder charge and the offence is made out. There may have been some poor positioning and technique by the player but he clearly tucks his left arm in alignment prior to contact and makes forceful contact with his opponent with his shoulder. Due the force involved there is secondary contact between the player’s heads. - 

[Lowdesert]

Still no word on the Taylor incident. Why so long?

[LeeF]

Acton 4 games, stupid by him but no injury. Soward previous week similar offence NFA - consistency in sentence......

But not the same offence if you read the reports

And Acton has a bit of previous

[hindle xiii]

I'm annoyed Walsh wasn't pinged for swearing and shouting at the ref after he thought the ref got a decision wrong. I think it was before his bad tackle.

[Guest]

I've no problem with the Walsh ban as he put the  player in a dangerous position. The Thompson one I find totally farcical.

We see shoulder charges most weeks and unless its a shoulder to head contact then its just an on-field penalty. Whether you believe this to be right or wrong that's what we've had all season. They've deemed that Thompson made a shoulder charge, that's fine but it was clearly NOT a shoulder to head contact, it was shoulder to body.

If they've deemed him to have made a shoulder charge then they've deemed him to have lead with the shoulder not lead with the head (and 1st contact was with the shoulder). Therefore the head clash was purely accidental not intentional. The 'illegal' shoulder charge didn't cause the injury, that was the accidental head clash.

To be banned for a shoulder to body contact is laughable when throughout the rest of the year its resulted in nothing more than an on-field penalty. To ban him for an accidental head clash is even more ludicrous.

 

All players and clubs want is consistency and when you get rulings like the Thompson one it just makes the RFL disciplinary look like complete ass clowns with all the legitimacy of a Russian drug testing unit. They've made it even more farcical by having 2 ex-wigan players on the panel banning Saints players the week before they play wigan. Its like appointing Russians to run WADA.

The illegal shoulder charge lead to the head clash, had he not lead with the shoulder the head clash would not have occurred. So, the shoulder charge did lead to the injury.

[John Drake]

Rugby League World went behind the scenes at this week's Match Review Panel and Disciplinary Tribunal.

 

You can read all about what actually goes on in the next issue, on sale Friday 26th August.

[sweaty craiq]

But not the same offence if you read the reports

And Acton has a bit of previous

If murder was also called illegal killing that would be a different offence also, both players made contact with a player with his back turned off the ball when the player was relaxed. What a trumped up name given to the charge

[Ullman]

Rugby League World went behind the scenes at this week's Match Review Panel and Disciplinary Tribunal.

 

You can read all about what actually goes on in the next issue, on sale Friday 26th August.

[Lowdesert]

McManus is not happy.....and it looks like the Taylor gouge incident isn't progressing either, based on Eamons comments.

http://www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/6197

[Dave T]

The entire game are perplexed apparently.

Saints really do need to get over themselves. Most arrogant team in uk rl.

[Ullman]

I thought the alleged eye gouging by Taylor was still under investigation rather than being "ignored by the authorities".

[dkw]

The illegal shoulder charge lead to the head clash, had he not lead with the shoulder the head clash would not have occurred. So, the shoulder charge did lead to the injury.

Ive never been sure where I stand on this kind of thing. I seem to remember the Cats player walking off with what looked like a knee injury too, but it also could have been caused by the other tackler. So does the disciplinary committee take these kind of injuries into account? and should they?

[Lowdesert]

I thought the alleged eye gouging by Taylor was still under investigation rather than being "ignored by the authorities".

Well, it might, but if have thought he'd know more about it than us.

I'd have thought that, should a panellist be unavailable, then they would have someone who could drop in. The timescales were obvious and we've been playing Thursday's for long enough.

Walsh's tackle deserved a ban IMO, but didn't see the other. The arbitrators obviously did!

[Ullman]

Well, it might, but if have thought he'd know more about it than us.

I'd have thought that, should a panellist be unavailable, then they would have someone who could drop in. The timescales were obvious and we've been playing Thursday's for long enough.

Walsh's tackle deserved a ban IMO, but didn't see the other. The arbitrators obviously did!

I think the Walsh ban is about right. I can't really remember the details of the Thompson incident.

 

I'm sure I heard on the sports news the other day that the Taylor incident was still being investigated but you're right, McManus should have a better idea than me.

[Guest]

McManus is not happy.....and it looks like the Taylor gouge incident isn't progressing either, based on Eamons comments.http://www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/6197

Can't understand the comments from McManus about not appealing then whinging that they will miss two matches each. They may both get a reduced ban and be available for the Hull game. Its whinging just for the sake of it.