Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Phantom Horseman

James Lockwood suspension

Recommended Posts

Lockwood has received a 1-match suspension following his red card.

Think most of us would have taken that to be honest, means he misses Swinton next week but can return for the Hunslet cup tie and more importantly will be available for York and Leigh in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even a one match ban is an injustice IMO after watching the video. It looked like a forearm smash from Dan Toal, who went in for afters in an aggressive manner. Locky must have been stunned because he slipped when trying to get up to play the ball, so even if he did put his feet up, either he wasn't thinking straight or it was in an attempt to defend himself? But hey-ho, not worth appealing and risking an increase.

Do we know whether Tool picked up a ban? (mis-spelling purely intentional)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steve Slater said:

Even a one match ban is an injustice IMO after watching the video. It looked like a forearm smash from Dan Toal, who went in for afters in an aggressive manner. Locky must have been stunned because he slipped when trying to get up to play the ball, so even if he did put his feet up, either he wasn't thinking straight or it was in an attempt to defend himself? But hey-ho, not worth appealing and risking an increase.

Do we know whether Tool picked up a ban? (mis-spelling purely intentional)

Just looked a good shot from Toal to me (unless it was a shoulder charge, which isn't totally clear from the video). None of the Fev players seemed to appeal to the ref (not even Bussey, who was standing very close to the incident) and on the commentary Chisholm just shouted out "shot!" Not sure what you mean by going in for afters in an aggressive manner, Lockwood was on the floor but nobody was near him and the tackle wasn't completed, of course he went in to complete the tackle, and you can't lift your feet to defend yourself if somebody is trying to complete a tackle.

Looking at the rules, it's clear that the disciplinary committee have charged Lockwood with either a Grade A or B offence ("makes light contact" as opposed to C or D ("makes full contact"), and that seems right. That's why he has a 1 match ban (it will either be a Grade A and he had previous offences in the last 2 years, or Grade B with no previous offences in last 2 years). The committee have a very clear set of gudielines to  follow and if you look at them regularly the outcomes usually make a bit more sense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Could have been worse.

But still, a loss for Sunday's big game.

The more I think about it, the more I find Chizzy's ban absurd.

When he first got banned, I thought it was harsh and said so on the thread at the time.

When I looked at the rules, though, the offence is quite specific - lifting player into a dangerous position - and there's little doubt he did that, Briscoe at one stage had his feet pointing to the sky around 5 feet off the ground with his head the lowest point of his body. Sometimes with these tip tackles it's hard to apportion blame especially when there are 3 in the tackle but I don't think that was the case here.

The gradings for this offence are B to D and they graded it at C. The only thing I'm a bit puzzled about is that the suspension range should have been 2-3 games for grade C and he received 3 games, which should mean he had certain previous offences over the last 12-24 months , which I couldn't find (though the RFL seems to have removed the search box that used to be helpful in such instances). I think he was a bit unlucky not to get 2 games instead of 3.

It didn't "feel" like it was a bad offence because I don't think anyone would argue there was any malice involved, it was a bit careless and no more, but I think the disciplinary panel probably followed the correct procedures.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

When he first got banned, I thought it was harsh and said so on the thread at the time.

When I looked at the rules, though, the offence is quite specific - lifting player into a dangerous position - and there's little doubt he did that, Briscoe at one stage had his feet pointing to the sky around 5 feet off the ground with his head the lowest point of his body. Sometimes with these tip tackles it's hard to apportion blame especially when there are 3 in the tackle but I don't think that was the case here.

The gradings for this offence are B to D and they graded it at C. The only thing I'm a bit puzzled about is that the suspension range should have been 2-3 games for grade C and he received 3 games, which should mean he had certain previous offences over the last 12-24 months , which I couldn't find (though the RFL seems to have removed the search box that used to be helpful in such instances). I think he was a bit unlucky not to get 2 games instead of 3.

It didn't "feel" like it was a bad offence because I don't think anyone would argue there was any malice involved, it was a bit careless and no more, but I think the disciplinary panel probably followed the correct procedures.

 

It's still there (at least on the desktop site), just harder to find - links/Google searches that used to take you straight to quite a number of useful pages (eg Disciplinary and Op Rules) now take you to pages from where you need to use the menu down the left hand side. Chisholm had a Grade A charge for contact with a Match Official from the Toulouse play off game last September for which he was found guilty but received no ban.

The 2 Barrow players sinbinned had no charges brought.

Edited by Les Tonks Sidestep
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Just looked a good shot from Toal to me (unless it was a shoulder charge, which isn't totally clear from the video). None of the Fev players seemed to appeal to the ref (not even Bussey, who was standing very close to the incident) and on the commentary Chisholm just shouted out "shot!" Not sure what you mean by going in for afters in an aggressive manner, Lockwood was on the floor but nobody was near him and the tackle wasn't completed, of course he went in to complete the tackle, and you can't lift your feet to defend yourself if somebody is trying to complete a tackle.

Looking at the rules, it's clear that the disciplinary committee have charged Lockwood with either a Grade A or B offence ("makes light contact" as opposed to C or D ("makes full contact"), and that seems right. That's why he has a 1 match ban (it will either be a Grade A and he had previous offences in the last 2 years, or Grade B with no previous offences in last 2 years). The committee have a very clear set of gudielines to  follow and if you look at them regularly the outcomes usually make a bit more sense.

Difficult to tell at normal speed, it looked like a forearm smash to me? When I saw it live I thought he would get a bigger ban than Chizzy, but obviously not so clear cut or he would have got a longer ban?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RobLambert said:

I think I need to join twitbook

If you like conspiracy theories and reading about how the RFL, refs and the disciplinary committee are biased against us, you'll love Facebook. It's consistent too - fans on every club's FB pages are convinced the RFL and/or referees have a personal vendetta against their club.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Steve Slater said:

Difficult to tell at normal speed, it looked like a forearm smash to me? When I saw it live I thought he would get a bigger ban than Chizzy, but obviously not so clear cut or he would have got a longer ban?

We have plenty of players (like every team) who are not averse to appealing to the referee at the slightest hint of foul play and nobody reacted at all to the original tackle.

With regard to Lockwood's punishment, they cited him under the umbrella term "other contrary behaviour" rather than the alternative of "kicks opponent - light contact", which I think is right - you couldn't really call it a kick, more of a push with his feet, albeit you can't do it when you're wearing studs. I think the verdict was sensible enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

If you like conspiracy theories and reading about how the RFL, refs and the disciplinary committee are biased against us, you'll love Facebook. It's consistent too - fans on every club's FB pages are convinced the RFL and/or referees have a personal vendetta against their club.

I'm not sure who is more boring - you or your fellow pro-RFL followers.  I think I would rather read whats on Facebook than spend all my time defending refereeing decisions and disciplinary decisions which clearly are not and never have been consistent when comparing the favoured clubs against teams SUCH AS Fev.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, RobLambert said:

I'm not sure who is more boring - you or your fellow pro-RFL followers.  I think I would rather read whats on Facebook than spend all my time defending refereeing decisions and disciplinary decisions which clearly are not and never have been consistent when comparing the favoured clubs against teams SUCH AS Fev.

Evidence and measured analysis often is more boring than wild speculation which fits an agenda. That's why the Sun is still the country's biggest-selling newspaper.

We all have a choice as to whether we analyse each incident on its merits whilst making sure we are fully acquainted with the rules, or deciding to take the one-eyed approach and play the victim in every instance.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, RobLambert said:

I'm not sure who is more boring - you or your fellow pro-RFL followers. 

And in no way am I "pro-RFL". The leadership has left a lot to be desired for some time and rarely inspires confidence.

I just don't believe they are instructing refs to favour certain teams or disciplinary committees to be more strict on some teams than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Evidence and measured analysis often is more boring than wild speculation which fits an agenda. That's why the Sun is still the country's biggest-selling newspaper.

We all have a choice as to whether we analyse each incident on its merits whilst making sure we are fully acquainted with the rules, or deciding to take the one-eyed approach and play the victim in every instance.

At the start of last year I came up with evidence that we lose significantly more close games than we win but you would not accept this.  This trend continued throughout last year but I've given up on that one.   I would suggest that accepting that rules are always fairly adhered to is a very blinkered and naive way of looking at things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RobLambert said:

At the start of last year I came up with evidence that we lose significantly more close games than we win but you would not accept this.  This trend continued throughout last year but I've given up on that one. 

Have you got a link to that? It's perfectly possible that we have lost more close games than we win but that isn't the same as meaning something fishy is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's accept that referees are human beings that are subject to making mistakes as all of us are. The idea of conspiracy is going on is ridiculous. If a referee is subject to booing or shouting abuse at him then being human he might react. We have all seen decisions that are not acceptable but that is the way life is. Outside of Rugby League it happens in daily life as well. I could tell you of many occasions when I have been wrongly accused or given a bad mark  that I didn't deserve. Just let's get on with the game. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

At the start of last year I came up with evidence that we lose significantly more close games than we win but you would not accept this.  This trend continued throughout last year but I've given up on that one.   I would suggest that accepting that rules are always fairly adhered to is a very blinkered and naive way of looking at things

I go some way in seeing your point Rob. Its human nature to have preference over someone or something. Its instilled into us as individuals. For instance when refs dont give offside for 90% of a game then decide to give it in the last seconds underneath the posts which has happened to Fev in tight contests as it has happened to others. Yes I agree refs are able to be bias and sometimes are in my opinion but as a collective body I cannot see the RFL having these clandestine imaginary meetings to inform refs to be bias against certain teams. There would have been many whistleblowers come forward by now. But I agree that bias is with us in all walks of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, J Phil Loxton said:

I go some way in seeing your point Rob. Its human nature to have preference over someone or something. Its instilled into us as individuals. For instance when refs dont give offside for 90% of a game then decide to give it in the last seconds underneath the posts which has happened to Fev in tight contests as it has happened to others. Yes I agree refs are able to be bias and sometimes are in my opinion but as a collective body I cannot see the RFL having these clandestine imaginary meetings to inform refs to be bias against certain teams. There would have been many whistleblowers come forward by now. But I agree that bias is with us in all walks of life.

Phil.  Some of us think there is something not quite right with the raw deal that we seem to have got all too often.  No more no less.  This talk of meetings where referees are instructed to make sure Fev and only Fev lose games is in the head of some of the above posters.  I don't think anyone has suggested this seriously but at least believing so keeps those RFL lovers amused.  I totally agree with your points about bias and this is where I am coming from.  We are not wanted in SL.  We don't fit with their model - is that a controversial think to say  ? I thought most people believed that ?  yes there are many clubs not wanted but there is a big argument to suggest that we are the least wanted.... (e.g.  We've been knocking on the door the longest and have been the most likely to push for promotion amongst the minnows, too close to Cas and Wakey, issues with some supporters etc).  Given that - is it not remotely possible there is slight bias (whether that be subconscious or not) amongst such as referees and the disciplinary panel.  even if its just on those occasional crucial 50:50 calls when it matters.  There are some other factors - would a referee even with no previous bias want Fev to get into SL with all the money Toronto are bringing into the game.  (surely refs want more money in the game - they are getting paid after all) Was there a referee with the balls to have overseen a Fev victory in that grand final ?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RobLambert said:

Phil.  Some of us think there is something not quite right with the raw deal that we seem to have got all too often.  No more no less.  This talk of meetings where referees are instructed to make sure Fev and only Fev lose games is in the head of some of the above posters.  I don't think anyone has suggested this seriously but at least believing so keeps those RFL lovers amused.  I totally agree with your points about bias and this is where I am coming from.  We are not wanted in SL.  We don't fit with their model - is that a controversial think to say  ? I thought most people believed that ?  yes there are many clubs not wanted but there is a big argument to suggest that we are the least wanted.... (e.g.  We've been knocking on the door the longest and have been the most likely to push for promotion amongst the minnows, too close to Cas and Wakey, issues with some supporters etc).  Given that - is it not remotely possible there is slight bias (whether that be subconscious or not) amongst such as referees and the disciplinary panel.  even if its just on those occasional crucial 50:50 calls when it matters.  There are some other factors - would a referee even with no previous bias want Fev to get into SL with all the money Toronto are bringing into the game.  (surely refs want more money in the game - they are getting paid after all) Was there a referee with the balls to have overseen a Fev victory in that grand final ?????

What a brill thing that against adversity on some fronts if Fev could get promoted in time for their 100th year as a league team. Keep believing Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Have you got a link to that? It's perfectly possible that we have lost more close games than we win but that isn't the same as meaning something fishy is going on.

No but after a while it makes you wonder (well me anyway).  As I said - last year the trend continued....

https://www.totalrl.com/forums/index.php?/topic/337356-match-thread-bradford-bulls-v-featherstone-rovers-sunday-3rd-feb-2019/page/6/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/02/2020 at 09:49, The Phantom Horseman said:

If you like conspiracy theories and reading about how the RFL, refs and the disciplinary committee are biased against us, you'll love Facebook. It's consistent too - fans on every club's FB pages are convinced the RFL and/or referees have a personal vendetta against their club.

The fans of every team think like that> It amazes me that the refs are supposedly  biased against both teams. That's even more difficult than refereeing fairly, as they see it which is what they do. Anyone found to be abusing referees should be given a choice. Either they receive a one year ban from attending any matches or they agree to go on a refereeing course!

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...