Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Old Frightful

Chris Satae at the RFL Disciplinary

Recommended Posts

3 matches for an off the ball hit versus Hull KR.

Don't mind as long as they're consistent when handing out bans for challenges like that.

Sean O'Loughlin, Sam Moa, Chris Hill et al better sort their games out as well then.

  • Like 1

                                                                        RADFORD OUT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 games is on the harsh side imo but I thought Hill's 3 matches last week was a little harsh too. So maybe they are clamping down on foul play this year. We will see as the season goes on. As you say all we ask is for consistency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

3 matches for an off the ball hit versus Hull KR.

Don't mind as long as they're consistent when handing out bans for challenges like that.

Sean O'Loughlin, Sam Moa, Chris Hill et al better sort their games out as well then.

Oh yeah, wish they would stop being so soft on Hill.

  • Like 1

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that according to the RFL disciplinary minutes that Saints have a player called Lomas and Warrington have one called Chamley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

3 matches for an off the ball hit versus Hull KR.

Don't mind as long as they're consistent when handing out bans for challenges like that.

Sean O'Loughlin, Sam Moa, Chris Hill et al better sort their games out as well then.

I think the Ref should have given him 10 minutes anyway as it was a dumb thing to do and was as clear as day.  That would’ve seen him get 2 matches.

Wouldn’t surprise me if he’s injured though from that ungainly fall getting the ball away.  He didn’t do much after that and was subbed for Bowden with 10 to go.

Hes improved on his performances at the back end of last year, didn’t seem to be a dirty player and will be a good buy imo.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gates1 said:

Matauti got 2 games for a late hit vs Toronto, so seems fairly consistent (a game less  because his was on Wilkin)

I was going to suggest that any team that takes Wilkin out late gets to play with 14 men for the next 10 minutes. 

But that feels a little too harsh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Oh yeah, wish they would stop being so soft on Hill.

I think 3 games was about right for what Hill did, don't you?, after all, Powell was knocked out by his "tackle".

As for Satae, Sean O'Loughlin carried out a similar late hit on Luke Robinson one Magic Weekend game a few years since and I was vociferous in my criticism of him then so I would be a hypocrite if I defended the Hull forward, even though a few of the WDL on here defended O'Loughlin at the time.

I just think these off the ball hits are rarely penalised and hardly ever does anyone receive any sort of ban so if the RFL are clamping down on such a cowardly action then great but I hope they are consistent with the punishment.

 


                                                                        RADFORD OUT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

I think 3 games was about right for what Hill did, don't you?, after all, Powell was knocked out by his "tackle".

As for Satae, Sean O'Loughlin carried out a similar late hit on Luke Robinson one Magic Weekend game a few years since and I was vociferous in my criticism of him then so I would be a hypocrite if I defended the Hull forward, even though a few of the WDL on here defended O'Loughlin at the time.

I just think these off the ball hits are rarely penalised and hardly ever does anyone receive any sort of ban so if the RFL are clamping down on such a cowardly action then great but I hope they are consistent with the punishment.

 

To be fair to the disciplinary it's difficult to have a consistent punishment when the tackle itself varies. Not every late hit is a penalty for example, if the defending player is committed and can't realistically pull out. The degree of lateness, the type of contact made, the way the player is brought to ground and the danger they're put in will vary. Pretty sure I've seen somewhere this week (maybe from one of the referees) that they do take into account the end result too (injury etc).

Throw in the fact that some are punished on the field, others aren't seen etc, so all-in-all it's difficult to have consistency in the form of equal punishments.

Edited by Moove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

I think 3 games was about right for what Hill did, don't you?, after all, Powell was knocked out by his "tackle".

As for Satae, Sean O'Loughlin carried out a similar late hit on Luke Robinson one Magic Weekend game a few years since and I was vociferous in my criticism of him then so I would be a hypocrite if I defended the Hull forward, even though a few of the WDL on here defended O'Loughlin at the time.

I just think these off the ball hits are rarely penalised and hardly ever does anyone receive any sort of ban so if the RFL are clamping down on such a cowardly action then great but I hope they are consistent with the punishment.

 

At least with Hill it was an attempt to stop a try and he got it wrong. It wasn't a good old fashioned stiff arm, just clumsy. Satae's was a cheap shot on a defenceless player, so whilst Hill's hit caused more damage I don't have any problems with them being seen as the same severity. 

Based on years gone by 3 games is on the harsh side for both incidents. But if that's the way the disciplinary is going to go about it this year then that's fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Frightful said:

I think 3 games was about right for what Hill did, don't you?, after all, Powell was knocked out by his "tackle".

As for Satae, Sean O'Loughlin carried out a similar late hit on Luke Robinson one Magic Weekend game a few years since and I was vociferous in my criticism of him then so I would be a hypocrite if I defended the Hull forward, even though a few of the WDL on here defended O'Loughlin at the time.

I just think these off the ball hits are rarely penalised and hardly ever does anyone receive any sort of ban so if the RFL are clamping down on such a cowardly action then great but I hope they are consistent with the punishment.

 

Agree with MZH. I didn't argue with Hill's red card but thought it was the result of being outfooted and too slow, not malice or an attempt to injure.


I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moove said:

To be fair to the disciplinary it's difficult to have a consistent punishment when the tackle itself varies. Not every late hit is a penalty for example, if the defending player is committed and can't realistically pull out. The degree of lateness, the type of contact made, the way the player is brought to ground and the danger they're put in will vary. Pretty sure I've seen somewhere this week (maybe from one of the referees) that they do take into account the end result too (injury etc).

Throw in the fact that some are punished on the field, others aren't seen etc, so all-in-all it's difficult to have consistency in the form of equal punishments.

You saw in on ‘The Sin Bin’... Paul Cullen was explaining how the match revue panel works and said that the outcome was taken into account when grading an incident. He also said that the grade for Hill’s incident is rated at 2 matches, 3 if the player has ‘previous’.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TBone said:

You saw in on ‘The Sin Bin’... Paul Cullen was explaining how the match revue panel works and said that the outcome was taken into account when grading an incident. He also said that the grade for Hill’s incident is rated at 2 matches, 3 if the player has ‘previous’.

Do they not take in account previous history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SL17 said:

Do they not take in account previous history?

Sorry but I thought TBone's post that you quoted made that obvious with the last line.

Unless, as usual, I've got the wrong end of the stick.


                                                                        RADFORD OUT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Agree with MZH. I didn't argue with Hill's red card but thought it was the result of being outfooted and too slow, not malice or an attempt to injure.

Looks like we have the explanation below.

7 hours ago, TBone said:

You saw in on ‘The Sin Bin’... Paul Cullen was explaining how the match revue panel works and said that the outcome was taken into account when grading an incident. He also said that the grade for Hill’s incident is rated at 2 matches, 3 if the player has ‘previous’.

Out of interest, how often has Hill been up before the disciplinary?, I know he's looked on as being a bit of a villain by opposition fans but I genuinely have no idea of his record.


                                                                        RADFORD OUT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

Looks like we have the explanation below.

Out of interest, how often has Hill been up before the disciplinary?, I know he's looked on as being a bit of a villain by opposition fans but I genuinely have no idea of his record.

I made the point last week about this. I don't recall Hill ever being sent off before and wasn't aware of bans for high tackles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

Looks like we have the explanation below.

Out of interest, how often has Hill been up before the disciplinary?, I know he's looked on as being a bit of a villain by opposition fans but I genuinely have no idea of his record.

He’d two charges v Catalans and two match suspension v saints. Couldn’t be bothered looking any further.Nothing previous on high tackles.

Edited by SL17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SL17 said:

He’d two charges v Catalans and two match suspension v saints. Couldn’t be bothered looking any further.

According to the RFL's site, he has 3 previous charges to his name. 

2017 - shoulder charge - 1 match ban

2019 - crusher tackle - 2 match ban

2019 - punch - 0 match ban

So no previous for a high tackle at all, but fair enough 2 charges in the last 12 months may be enough to mean he deserves the higher end. I have no issues with the RFL getting tougher on these kind of things, I have often criticised them for seeming to go out of their way to justify incidents to reduce the ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d rather they stay out of the grey areas Dave. Previous should be previous offences not    a case of looking for similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SL17 said:

I’d rather they stay out of the grey areas Dave. Previous should be previous offences not    a case of looking for similar.

I agree, however the RFL have previously used the mitigant that there have been no similar offences. I understand it to an extent, if a player has an issue with high tackles then that should be used to justify a higher ban, so this would be the flip side of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

3 matches for an off the ball hit versus Hull KR.

Don't mind as long as they're consistent when handing out bans for challenges like that.

Sean O'Loughlin, Sam Moa, Chris Hill et al better sort their games out as well then.

I think the late hit is this years "focus foul" - similar to the crusher tackle and canonball tackle in previous years.

Matautia got 2 matches and honestly didn't see anything in the game (that's not defending him by the way)


As you say, as long as there is consistency - no idea why Matautia got 2 and Satae got 3


Now then, it's a race between Sandie....and Fairburn....and the little man is in........yeees he's in.

I, just like those Castleford supporters felt that the ball should have gone to David Plange but he put the bit betwen his teeth...and it was a try

Kevin Ward - best player I have ever seen

DSC04156_edited-1_thumb.jpg

The real Mick Gledhill is what you see on here, a Bradford fan ........, but deep down knows that Bradford are just not good enough to challenge the likes of Leeds & St Helens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Kenilworth Tiger said:

I think the late hit is this years "focus foul" - similar to the crusher tackle and canonball tackle in previous years.

Matautia got 2 matches and honestly didn't see anything in the game (that's not defending him by the way)


As you say, as long as there is consistency - no idea why Matautia got 2 and Satae got 3

I would imagine it's because Matautia's offence was graded as Grade B and and Satae's at Grade C. The wording of the detail of the charge is identical in both cases though. I'm guessing that's why Hull are challenging the length of the ban.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/hull-fc-chris-satae-ban-3833864

  • Like 2

Old Faithful we never lose at Wembley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard from RoyBoy that Hull's appeal was successful.

Reduced to two matches.

Apparently, with JB in mind, the RFL recognised the fact that Satae wasn't as dirty a bas*ard as Chris Hill and offered their apologies.

  • Haha 1

                                                                        RADFORD OUT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...