Connor & Sammut banned

[MZH]

3 hours ago, philipw said:

Given Sammut got two matches, why was he playing yesterday? 

Presumably his ban is only for competitive games. If he wasn't allowed to play yesterday it would count towards his ban and the ban then becomes meaningless. 

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

3 hours ago, bobbruce said:

That’s the problem you think this is trivial I’d say the majority of us don’t think abusing Refs verbally or physically is trivial. 

unlike our current justice system (which just let off a killer driving a motor to 200 hours community service after mowing down a cyclist at 66mph whilst travelling along a narrow lane!), I agree it's not trivial, clamp down and maybe some will think twice about doing it again and others about doing it at all. Maybe some coaches might even tell their players to stop being twonks and fine them on top of whatever the RFL hand out.

However we do need consistency across the board, both in live play and the disciplinary panel and the way events/incidents are judged. Either we have all direct contact to the head as an instant red or we don't, either we penalise backchat or the ref  lets it go, as a consequence we see more players arm waving like Wellens who could generate his own electricity the amount he did and the Kev Sinfield type. Ping em 10 each and every time unless  it's the captain asking for an explanation. Continual backchat and you get a yellow.

Physical contact with a ref that is obvious/obviously avoided in the game should be a yellow card offence too.

[philipw]

30 minutes ago, MZH said:

Presumably his ban is only for competitive games. If he wasn't allowed to play yesterday it would count towards his ban and the ban then becomes meaningless. 

That was my first thought, but wasn't sure how bans accrued in preseason work. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

I don’t understand the pre season ban system. I also think the RFL could have done us a favour and allowed the Barrow game to count so that he would get a run out to show what he can do prior to the Roosters game. In that game we are representing the country and the competition, after all. 

 

[dkw]

I think your allowed to use one reserve game but not friendlies.

[Rupert Prince]

5 hours ago, MZH said:

Presumably his ban is only for competitive games. If he wasn't allowed to play yesterday it would count towards his ban and the ban then becomes meaningless. 

In what way was the Salford game "competitive", or to put it another way, why was Barrow game not competitive.  Both matches were freely entered into.

I'm not bothered about length of ban, but I fail to see why 2 pre season games should be treated differently. 

[MZH]

9 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

In what way was the Salford game "competitive", or to put it another way, why was Barrow game not competitive.  Both matches were freely entered into.

I'm not bothered about length of ban, but I fail to see why 2 pre season games should be treated differently. 

So if a player gets banned, you would be happy for that ban to be served by missing a couple of friendlies? What consequence does that have? 

Especially when it's a game like the Barrow one where its essentially a reserve team game. Hell whats to stop them arranging a last minute friendly against St Judes on Wednesday night, sending the under 18's and using that as one of his banned games? 

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, MZH said:

So if a player gets banned, you would be happy for that ban to be served by missing a couple of friendlies? What consequence does that have? 

Especially when it's a game like the Barrow one where its essentially a reserve team game. Hell whats to stop them arranging a last minute friendly against St Judes on Wednesday night, sending the under 18's and using that as one of his banned games? 

He played in the Barrow game, why should he have played at all?  The Barrow game was arranged before the incident at Salford, so there is no point being facetious. 

Were these "pre season", by invitation,  so called Yorkshire Cup games friendlies? If someone was red carded, would they have gone on to play in the next "friendly" game? 

[bobbruce]

11 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

He played in the Barrow game, why should he have played at all?  The Barrow game was arranged before the incident at Salford, so there is no point being facetious. 

Were these "pre season", by invitation,  so called Yorkshire Cup games friendlies? If someone was red carded, would they have gone on to play in the next "friendly" game? 

I’m not sure what you mean. You can receive a ban in these games but you can’t serve a ban in these games. Unless of course you are banned for a certain length of time rather than a number of games. 

[MZH]

57 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

He played in the Barrow game, why should he have played at all?  The Barrow game was arranged before the incident at Salford, so there is no point being facetious. 

Were these "pre season", by invitation,  so called Yorkshire Cup games friendlies? If someone was red carded, would they have gone on to play in the next "friendly" game? 

I'm not trying to be facetious, I am pointing out that it would be open to being abused. A lot of clubs have friendlies against lower league opposition which are solely for the benefit of their youth teams, with no senior players being involved. Would it really be fair for a player to serve a ban in a game like that? 

I think allowing them to play in the friendlies is fine. Allows them to continue with their preparation but then when the league/Cup games arrive they have to sit out. The alternative would be to make it so that bans go by time rather than number of games missed. Eg, a 1 month ban. But as the disciplinary is currently, you just can't include friendlies, otherwise where is the punishment? 

[Dave T]

On 1/25/2019 at 10:04 PM, MZH said:

As much as I love the guy, Connor is a gobs***e. I have no issue at all with his niggle and his getting under the oppositions skin, he has a reputation and he plays to it, and that's fine, but he needs to be smarter about it. You can't be swearing at referees and I have no problem with the ban whatsoever. 

It leaves Hull with a headache for the Derby though because it doesn't seem like Kelly will be fit and Sneyd has only had very limited minutes in pre season after returning from injury.

I think this is right. I quite like the cockiness, but it does need to come with a bit of smartness too. I know that fans used to get wound up with the likes of Lee Briers, but he also did the work of building a bit of a relationship with the ref which bought him some leeway. I think the good players do this. Connor doesn't appear to have much wit or banter around him, he always just seems angry. 

To get banned for gobbing off in a pre-season friendly and miss the opening round, that should see him get a good rollicking to be honest.

[Rupert Prince]

3 hours ago, MZH said:

I'm not trying to be facetious, I am pointing out that it would be open to being abused. A lot of clubs have friendlies against lower league opposition which are solely for the benefit of their youth teams, with no senior players being involved. Would it really be fair for a player to serve a ban in a game like that? 

I think allowing them to play in the friendlies is fine. Allows them to continue with their preparation but then when the league/Cup games arrive they have to sit out. The alternative would be to make it so that bans go by time rather than number of games missed. Eg, a 1 month ban. But as the disciplinary is currently, you just can't include friendlies, otherwise where is the punishment? 

The issue I am making is it seems to be ok to get a red card in a friendly and still play the next game if it happens to be a friendly.  The fact that a player gets red carded and then receives a notional first team ban is irrelevant to that.

But frankly IF a friendly is to be just that , and no one really cares about the consequences of the next friendly, then why assume the importance of the aforesaid foul in the first place. 

[MZH]

3 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

The issue I am making is it seems to be ok to get a red card in a friendly and still play the next game if it happens to be a friendly.  The fact that a player gets red carded and then receives a notional first team ban is irrelevant to that.

But frankly IF a friendly is to be just that , and no one really cares about the consequences of the next friendly, then why assume the importance of the aforesaid foul in the first place. 

Because players can't be allowed to get away with thuggery just because it's a friendly. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

On ‎1‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 6:09 PM, dkw said:

I think your allowed to use one reserve game but not friendlies.

You can now count 2 'friendlies' (or at least you could the last time I checked the Op Rules at the end of last season - suffer from mild insomnia  )

[Rupert Prince]

22 minutes ago, MZH said:

Because players can't be allowed to get away with thuggery just because it's a friendly. 

But they are. Sammut as an example played in a friendly following his alltocation in an earlier friendly.   If someone gets a red card in a friendly, but was then in fact never going to to play in any later full time game, well such a foul goes unpunished. 

[MZH]

1 hour ago, Rupert Prince said:

But they are. Sammut as an example played in a friendly following his alltocation in an earlier friendly.   If someone gets a red card in a friendly, but was then in fact never going to to play in any later full time game, well such a foul goes unpunished. 

So you are talking about fringe players getting banned for games that they wouldn't be getting picked for anyway? Yes, it's a valid point. 

Maybe the best way to go about it is a ban from all types of game for a certain period of time rather than a set number of games. 

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, MZH said:

So you are talking about fringe players getting banned for games that they wouldn't be getting picked for anyway? Yes, it's a valid point. 

Maybe the best way to go about it is a ban from all types of game for a certain period of time rather than a set number of games. 

Fringe players would still be banned from reserve or academy games. 

[MZH]

4 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Fringe players would still be banned from reserve or academy games. 

Yes but how do you determine that? 

Just to pick a name at random from Wigan's fringe, let's say it was Jack Wells that got banned instead of Sammut. There are no academy or reserve games happening in the next couple of weeks, but there are SL games. By week two he will served his ban despite the fact that he was never going to play in those games anyway. It is a flaw in the system.