George Flanagan

[tms]

kear as spoken on the alleged  incident which is suspected to have occurred in the 32nd minute of Bulls' 41-16 defeat in the Betfred Challenge Cup by Featherstone last Sunday.

I  have seen the incident on numerous occasions, and I am mystified," muted Kear who will join Flanagan at the tribunal on Tuesday.

[Phil]

Reffed him in the juniors, was a nasty, gobby piece of work even at 15 

[RigbyLuger]

Probably misunderstood. RLs next redemption story to fill the papers.

[tms]

George Flanagan of Bradford Bulls has been suspended for 10 matches and fined £250 after being found guilty of attacking an opponent’s testicles. The Grade F incident occurred in the 32nd minute of the Bulls’ Challenge Cup Second Round tie with Featherstone Rovers on Sunday 21 March. Flanagan had pleaded not guilty.  

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, POR said:

George Flanagan of Bradford Bulls has been suspended for 10 matches and fined £250 after being found guilty of attacking an opponent’s testicles. The Grade F incident occurred in the 32nd minute of the Bulls’ Challenge Cup Second Round tie with Featherstone Rovers on Sunday 21 March. Flanagan had pleaded not guilty.  

That seems a ridiculously light punishment.

[RP London]

38 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

That seems a ridiculously light punishment.

yep, its a little bit longer than his first offence almost to make a point but not really.. Even though it will probably equate to a larger proportion of the season as its been shortened thats not really the point. I would have given him a 12 -18 month ban.. time rather than matches which i think is important, plus probably long enough to make him seriously think about his career at the age of 34.. 

but depends what is laid out in the grading book for offences i suppose!

[LeeF]

19 minutes ago, RP London said:

yep, its a little bit longer than his first offence almost to make a point but not really.. Even though it will probably equate to a larger proportion of the season as its been shortened thats not really the point. I would have given him a 12 -18 month ban.. time rather than matches which i think is important, plus probably long enough to make him seriously think about his career at the age of 34.. 

but depends what is laid out in the grading book for offences i suppose!

The grading indicated an 8 match ban as minimum if found guilty

10 matches for a second offence of this magnitude is woefully lenient

[silverback]

 To be fair he did well for us at batley,coming off the bench games changed for sure, BUT, when you think  that one of our players got a 2 year ban for putting a fiver on us winning a game a rugby, have seen players thumped from behind and ended up with a broken jaw and only 10 game ban handed out.Not that long ago we had a club director call our winger a BB and what were done.nothing.

[RP London]

11 minutes ago, LeeF said:

The grading indicated an 8 match ban as minimum if found guilty

10 matches for a second offence of this magnitude is woefully lenient

they often also have a maximum, do you know if it did?

totally agree it is woefully lenient but just wondering if there is a reason for it (ie they cannot go outside of this boundary) rather than just jumpng on the usual incompetency excuse.

[dkw]

Ridiculously weak ban that, a total ban from the game wouldnt have been out of order. At the very least he should be sat down for the entirety of this season.

[RP London]

just had a look and Grade F is 8+ in the range.. so they could have done whatever they like... 10 games is a cop out. 

at 34 they could have basically forced his retirement and I dont think that would have been the wrong thing to do. 

[RigbyLuger]

Should be more for bringing the game into disrepute. Wonder why he pleaded not guilty?

[clifford]

He may have thought that the change was for grabbing both and he only grabbed one or just the .

[LeeF]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

they often also have a maximum, do you know if it did?

totally agree it is woefully lenient but just wondering if there is a reason for it (ie they cannot go outside of this boundary) rather than just jumpng on the usual incompetency excuse.

No maximum for this grading

Also the Committee can go outside the range for any grading

[Hela Wigmen]

Is the footage available anywhere? I’ve not seen anything from this so it’s hard to make a judgement. 

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, silverback said:

 To be fair he did well for us at batley,coming off the bench games changed for sure, BUT, when you think  that one of our players got a 2 year ban for putting a fiver on us winning a game a rugby, have seen players thumped from behind and ended up with a broken jaw and only 10 game ban handed out.Not that long ago we had a club director call our winger a BB and what were done.nothing.

This. Its grubby what he did but people calling for longer bans come on.

[RigbyLuger]

14 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

This. Its grubby what he did but people calling for longer bans come on.

He's done it twice and brought bad publicity for the sport.

[sentoffagain2]

17 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

This. Its grubby what he did but people calling for longer bans come on.

He's had an 8 match ban plus £250 fine so you have to top that.There is no need for it in our game.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

24 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

This. Its grubby what he did but people calling for longer bans come on.

I agree, people shouldn't be calling for longer bans - he should've just been told he can never play the game again. 

[The Future is League]

13 hours ago, POR said:

George Flanagan of Bradford Bulls has been suspended for 10 matches and fined £250 after being found guilty of attacking an opponent’s testicles. The Grade F incident occurred in the 32nd minute of the Bulls’ Challenge Cup Second Round tie with Featherstone Rovers on Sunday 21 March. Flanagan had pleaded not guilty.  

He should have been suspended for the rest of the season

[TrueBull]

4 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Is the footage available anywhere? I’ve not seen anything from this so it’s hard to make a judgement. 

I've only seen what was on the red button on the BBC 2weeks ago. And that didn't show anything really. I would assume one or other of the clubs would have different footage. But it still took about 3hours of deliberation to come to a decision. I think there will be enough "leeway" in the original decision to allow an appeal. Is the decision usually released on the Thursday after? 

[Robin Evans]

5 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

This. Its grubby what he did but people calling for longer bans come on.

Kind of my sentiments.

He's a Richard of a bloke and a grub of a player.... but some are calling for sine die????

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Robin Evans said:

Kind of my sentiments.

He's a Richard of a bloke and a grub of a player.... but some are calling for sine die????

So what, just shrug of someone twice doing something that could cause life changing injuries to a player? To do it once was stupid and disgraceful,  to then do it again knowing the damage it could cause is unforgivable and he should not be allowed to possibly do it again.

[Robin Evans]

Just now, dkw said:

So what, just shrug of someone twice doing something that could cause life changing injuries to a player? To do it once was stupid and disgraceful,  to then do it again knowing the damage it could cause is unforgivable and he should not be allowed to possibly do it again.

Then we disagree

[dkw]

Just now, Robin Evans said:

Then we disagree

So what punishment should have gotten in your opinion.