Lineham 3 match ban

[Lowdesert]

Didn’t see it clearly enough.  Was it a flying head butt?

[Gooleboy]

35 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Didn’t see it clearly enough.  Was it a flying head butt?

Looked like it, should have been sent off for me.

[LeeF]

It was so late the TV cameras struggled to show it clearly 

[DavidM]

50 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Didn’t see it clearly enough.  Was it a flying head butt?

Flying pig ... flying headbutt 

[Cheshire Setter]

Lineham is such a strange one.   He’s a fantastic all-round winger, but every now and then he does something unfathomable.   He’s an intelligent guy by all accounts so I can only imagine the reasoning behind all this is that his boyhood hero was Kelvin Skerrett or something.   Or maybe he shouldn’t be sat next to naughty Westwood at lunch time in training.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

It was so late the TV cameras struggled to show it clearly 

Panel must have viewed some footage to give 3 games considering he got a yellow card.  If they just used the existing footage, then clear evidence didn’t really exist imo.

The tenth of a second I saw it looked like he launched into the head.

[TBone]

55 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Panel must have viewed some footage to give 3 games considering he got a yellow card.  If they just used the existing footage, then clear evidence didn’t really exist imo.

The tenth of a second I saw it looked like he launched into the head.

All clubs are required to provide the RFL with a visual recording of all home games for use by the disciplinary  panel.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

Panel must have viewed some footage to give 3 games considering he got a yellow card.  If they just used the existing footage, then clear evidence didn’t really exist imo.

The tenth of a second I saw it looked like he launched into the head.

I think had we had more time to see the incidents we could have discussed it better, but the 2 or 3 angles Sky showed were pretty fleeting and it looked like shoulder to me. I expect the RFL will have had every angle though so should be able to get a better view.

I thought it was very late, but it was unclear where the point of contact was - they obviously have footage to confirm it was high.

Cant have any issues with it.

[Dave T]

By the way, in terms of process, what does this mean. Does he get a 3 match ban without a disciplinary? How does that work, it seems a strong punishment without a chance to have it reviewed with the full process and chance to mount a defence.

Or can Lineham/Wire not accept the charge and ask for a hearing?

[Ullman]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

By the way, in terms of process, what does this mean. Does he get a 3 match ban without a disciplinary? How does that work, it seems a strong punishment without a chance to have it reviewed with the full process and chance to mount a defence.

Or can Lineham/Wire not accept the charge and ask for a hearing?

I believe that is the case.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

By the way, in terms of process, what does this mean. Does he get a 3 match ban without a disciplinary? How does that work, it seems a strong punishment without a chance to have it reviewed with the full process and chance to mount a defence.

Or can Lineham/Wire not accept the charge and ask for a hearing?

As Tbone says, the club has video.  It must show enough for them to give a 3 match ban.  

Imo the punishments fair enough, although if he appeals the disciplinary might stretch it until the end of July.  Worth a gamble

 

[Dave T]

49 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

As Tbone says, the club has video.  It must show enough for them to give a 3 match ban.  

Imo the punishments fair enough, although if he appeals the disciplinary might stretch it until the end of July.  Worth a gamble

 

Yeah it was more about the process, I always thought the more serious offences had to have a hearing, imho Grade C and 3 matches is pretty serious nowadays in SL.

[Lowdesert]

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

Yeah it was more about the process, I always thought the more serious offences had to have a hearing, imho Grade C and 3 matches is pretty serious nowadays in SL.

I think that is was Hudgell was alluding to. Not sure but has he appealed?

[Cheshire Setter]

Is the length of the ban not also taking into account he has a history of this sort of thing?   He copped a ban in 2017 for use of the forearm and then 2 matches I think for the late swing on Regan Grace a couple of months back.

I would have hoped he’d been told to sort himself out.

[Saint Toppy]

19 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Is the length of the ban not also taking into account he has a history of this sort of thing?   He copped a ban in 2017 for use of the forearm and then 2 matches I think for the late swing on Regan Grace a couple of months back.

I would have hoped he’d been told to sort himself out.

Almost certainly the case, lineham has history of late hits to the head and as you’ve said the most recent was earlier this year. The more he does it the longer his bans will get.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Is the length of the ban not also taking into account he has a history of this sort of thing?   He copped a ban in 2017 for use of the forearm and then 2 matches I think for the late swing on Regan Grace a couple of months back.

I would have hoped he’d been told to sort himself out.

•  If the player has:

 - No record showing two or more offences in last 24 months, including one in last 12 months; and no similar offence (as defined in the Sentencing Guidelines) at Grade C or above in last 24 months = penalty at lower end of range (for example – one match for Grade B)

 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

•  If the player has:

 - No record showing two or more offences in last 24 months, including one in last 12 months; and no similar offence (as defined in the Sentencing Guidelines) at Grade C or above in last 24 months = penalty at lower end of range (for example – one match for Grade B)

 

 

 

Two or more offences in last 24 months, including at least one in last 12 months; or similar offence at Grade C or above in last 24 months = penalty at higher end of range (for example – two matches for Grade B)

So he got the higher end of a Grade C due to 2 offences in the last 2 years, including one in the last 12 months. Makes sense.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

I think that is was Hudgell was alluding to. Not sure but has he appealed?

No mention, so I assume it has been accepted. 

Looks like the exact same thing happened last year where he was charged with a Grade C tackle on Manfredi - this was challenged and downgraded to a B.

[Oxford]

I never realised 'till today just how much the posts and threads on here resemble the discussions on Sky when there's foul play, life mirrors art!

[Lowdesert]

5 hours ago, Oxford said:

I never realised 'till today just how much the posts and threads on here resemble the discussions on Sky when there's foul play, life mirrors art!

Sky is a couple of days behind this forum Oxy.  Cummings is usually 3 or 4.

 

[Oxford]

 

 

5 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

Sky is a couple of days behind this forum Oxy.  Cummings is usually 3 or 4. 

 

Art mirrors life then!

Or you always turn into what you hate most.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

 

 

Art mirrors life then!

Or you always turn into what you hate most.

Veal.  Not looking good fir me then.