LeeF Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 Maybe he shouldn’t have challenged the grading https://www.rugby-league.com/article/58064/disciplinary-update Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man of Kent Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 Game’s on its a**e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvusxiii Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 I haven't read Leefs link. I dont have the fortitude to do so. For some of us there seems to be a constant dripping erosion of trust and credibility. I know, I know...live with it- get over it- end off. I know. TESTICULI AD BREXITAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Mead Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 Great work Liam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Browny Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 He should have followed the lead of his fellow Liam, Farrell, who graciously accepted his zero game suspension after being found guilty of a head shot. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whippet13 Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 8 minutes ago, Just Browny said: He should have followed the lead of his fellow Liam, Farrell, who graciously accepted his zero game suspension after being found guilty of a head shot. Unfair to expect Watts to make that comparison as they were charged with different offences, his being the more serious. Farrell was "High Tackle" whilst Watts was "Dangerous Contact". There is no offence called a "head shot". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OriginalMrC Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 Why would you appeal a one match ban? Seems he was poorly advised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said: Why would you appeal a one match ban? Seems he was poorly advised You'd think clubs would handle appeals on behalf of the players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RP London Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 cant imagine his tweet helped his cause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelic Cynic Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 He had been playing well,this year,up to that point. I think he may have blown his international chances. More importantly, I hope Elijah Taylor makes a full recovery. It would be nice to rid the sport of the deliberate act. No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenilworth Tiger Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 The EXACT same offence was committed the week before by Mossop on Danny Richardson with no ban whatsoever. I say EXACT same offence when actually Mossop swung his arm with intent to cause serious harm, missing Richardson's head by luck rather than judgement I think it's fair to understand why Wattsy felt the need to appeal. 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 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MZH Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 48 minutes ago, Kenilworth Tiger said: The EXACT same offence was committed the week before by Mossop on Danny Richardson with no ban whatsoever. I say EXACT same offence when actually Mossop swung his arm with intent to cause serious harm, missing Richardson's head by luck rather than judgement I think it's fair to understand why Wattsy felt the need to appeal. I think where he's shot himself in the foot is his comments on social media. That was never going to go down well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 54 minutes ago, Kenilworth Tiger said: The EXACT same offence was committed the week before by Mossop on Danny Richardson with no ban whatsoever. I say EXACT same offence when actually Mossop swung his arm with intent to cause serious harm, missing Richardson's head by luck rather than judgement I think it's fair to understand why Wattsy felt the need to appeal. So Mossop should have been banned as well, not Watts getting off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Badrinath Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 51 minutes ago, Kenilworth Tiger said: The EXACT same offence was committed the week before by Mossop on Danny Richardson with no ban whatsoever. I say EXACT same offence when actually Mossop swung his arm with intent to cause serious harm, missing Richardson's head by luck rather than judgement I think it's fair to understand why Wattsy felt the need to appeal. So not exactly the same then, a late tackle (in the loosest term) as opposed to a shoulder charge in the back, much like Jack Hughes also got suspended for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenilworth Tiger Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 Dear God..... 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 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 Just watched this incident back. We have seen worse with just a penalty given let alone 10 minutes in the bin. Several incidents last weekend left me scratching my head on the decisions given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted May 12, 2021 Author Share Posted May 12, 2021 There is now the full minutes of the meeting on the RFL site and the case is well argued by the Disciplinary committee especially when they use a previous Castleford grade B charge which Castleford accepted. From the explanation provided and having watched the incident albeit once I think the grading is correct for this case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 15 minutes ago, LeeF said: There is now the full minutes of the meeting on the RFL site and the case is well argued by the Disciplinary committee especially when they use a previous Castleford grade B charge which Castleford accepted. From the explanation provided and having watched the incident albeit once I think the grading is correct for this case I can’t find that but either way, i disagree with the initial ban. The yellow card dealt with it in my opinion. Same game, Taylor is issued 2 cautions for the same Law as Watts. How many does it take before these warrant further punishment? Hull game, two illegal tackles to the lower leg. The initial tackle (Powell) aimed more across the natural bending angle of the joint than the Brown tackle again, in my opinion based on experience. Only one player given a yellow card. I thought we were supposed to be cracking down on contacts to the head? The Farrell hit on Griffin received a zero match penalty. Baffling. Never going to be perfect Lee but some of these need dealing with on the pitch rather than the disciplinary panel who seem (to me) to be trying make examples one minute and being max the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted May 12, 2021 Author Share Posted May 12, 2021 13 minutes ago, Lowdesert said: I can’t find that but either way, i disagree with the initial ban. The yellow card dealt with it in my opinion. Same game, Taylor is issued 2 cautions for the same Law as Watts. How many does it take before these warrant further punishment? Hull game, two illegal tackles to the lower leg. The initial tackle (Powell) aimed more across the natural bending angle of the joint than the Brown tackle again, in my opinion based on experience. Only one player given a yellow card. I thought we were supposed to be cracking down on contacts to the head? The Farrell hit on Griffin received a zero match penalty. Baffling. Never going to be perfect Lee but some of these need dealing with on the pitch rather than the disciplinary panel who seem (to me) to be trying make examples one minute and being max the next. The decision is on the Disciplinary page. Look for Watts’ charge. The Watts grading & initial ban are correct IMO. The appeal on the grading was a punt that they lost Cautions are kept on record so if they appear or are charged these are factored into any ban etc. I have seen reference made to them before. The 2 “tackles” you refer to are interesting ones. Ian Smith very experienced ex ref said that they were slightly different hence why one sin bin the other not. Head attacks either intentional or accidental definitely need addressing more severely. I have posted to that effect numerous times so I aren’t going to argue. The on pitch decision isn’t straightforward. One view at normal speed etc along with the knowledge you will be criticised, in some cases unfairly, if you get it wrong results in the lack of red cards IMO. There have been a number of instances where the Match Officials have been hung out to dry Some of the tackles to the knee area are very difficult to see as it is usually the 3rd or even 4th man in but again, like head tackles, I’m not sure the message is being enforced by the Disciplinary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowys Backside Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 I too thought Mossop had lots of intent and was a lucky boy. Angry at the time, and if he connected, Richardson would still be asleep ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davo5 Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 4 hours ago, Kenilworth Tiger said: Dear God..... Was he on the panel ? Watts didn’t have a prayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 1 hour ago, LeeF said: The decision is on the Disciplinary page. Look for Watts’ charge. The Watts grading & initial ban are correct IMO. The appeal on the grading was a punt that they lost Cautions are kept on record so if they appear or are charged these are factored into any ban etc. I have seen reference made to them before. The 2 “tackles” you refer to are interesting ones. Ian Smith very experienced ex ref said that they were slightly different hence why one sin bin the other not. Head attacks either intentional or accidental definitely need addressing more severely. I have posted to that effect numerous times so I aren’t going to argue. The on pitch decision isn’t straightforward. One view at normal speed etc along with the knowledge you will be criticised, in some cases unfairly, if you get it wrong results in the lack of red cards IMO. There have been a number of instances where the Match Officials have been hung out to dry Some of the tackles to the knee area are very difficult to see as it is usually the 3rd or even 4th man in but again, like head tackles, I’m not sure the message is being enforced by the Disciplinary Caution history. Ok, I can understand that. Doesn’t hat also apply to Taylor then? Or is it 3rd time lucky? I have no doubt the Powell tackle went more against the knee hinge whereas Brown was unlucky in that both tacklers pushed the player over backwards as he tackled him. Both should’ve been yellow though and as has been mentioned earlier in the Hull/Wigan thread, the Law states that no tackling to the lower leg by any 3rd 4th etc player is allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davo5 Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 10 hours ago, Whippet13 said: Unfair to expect Watts to make that comparison as they were charged with different offences, his being the more serious. Farrell was "High Tackle" whilst Watts was "Dangerous Contact". There is no offence called a "head shot". C’mon it’s Browny,surely your not expecting facts in one of his Wigan tirades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted May 12, 2021 Author Share Posted May 12, 2021 27 minutes ago, Lowdesert said: Caution history. Ok, I can understand that. Doesn’t hat also apply to Taylor then? Or is it 3rd time lucky? I have no doubt the Powell tackle went more against the knee hinge whereas Brown was unlucky in that both tacklers pushed the player over backwards as he tackled him. Both should’ve been yellow though and as has been mentioned earlier in the Hull/Wigan thread, the Law states that no tackling to the lower leg by any 3rd 4th etc player is allowed. The number of cautions isn’t stated but I have seen it used to give a slightly longer ban. The same rules will apply to Taylor The lack of action against both “knee” and “high” tackles is a concern to me as I stated above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted May 12, 2021 Author Share Posted May 12, 2021 31 minutes ago, Davo5 said: Was he on the panel ? Watts didn’t have a prayer. No he delegated it to his right hand man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.