johnh1 Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 8 minutes ago, Dunbar said: Yes, this was my point on the match thread at the time when it was suggested Isa get a yellow or a red. I mentioned that as the ref hadn't seen the incident and it was picked up by the video ref, could it only be put on report and no on field action taken? I don't know the definitive answer to this but sending players off based on video ref intervention would create an inconsistency between televised and non televised games I guess. This happens all the time with televised games. A player goes down injured. The clock is stopped. The ref consults with the video ref and the player is sent off. Wouldn’t happen in a non televised game. So why is this incident different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleEyePie Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 The charges against Isa seem right, in the sense that he's been charged for the ugly challenges on Welsby and Grace. The other incidents weren't worthy of punishment. The 'challenge' on Percival was exactly how the disciplinary panel described it, a trailing hand to the face. It's not a ban in any other circumstance. The same goes for the high tackle on LMS. Just one of a large number of high tackles this season that's worth a penalty and no further action. The warning for the shoulder charge is fair too. In terms of the suspension though I think it's quite lenient. There's no excuse for the challenge on Welsby. He knew he wasn't in possession so it's not like he was trying to complete a tackle. It was just a dangerous challenge to the head of a player who was on the ground and couldn't defend himself. That's the sort of incident that needs punishing severely. If he made that sort of contact in the course of making a tackle it would be more understandable but off the ball stuff needs to be dealt with more harshly. As for the challenge on Grace, maybe 1 match is fair but considering Jackson Hastings got a 1 match ban for tugging the shirt of a player who was on his knees I don't see how a forearm to the someone's face is worthy of the same punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 1 minute ago, johnh1 said: This happens all the time with televised games. A player goes down injured. The clock is stopped. The ref consults with the video ref and the player is sent off. Wouldn’t happen in a non televised game. So why is this incident different? Well in that example, the ref has seen the incident in question and then gets some input from the video ref. My point on the Isa one is the ref didn't see the incident in real time and was referred back to it by the video ref. As I say, I don't know if this is definitive but I am speculating why an obvious incident like this didn't result in a yellow or red on the day. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidM Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 11 minutes ago, Dunbar said: Well in that example, the ref has seen the incident in question and then gets some input from the video ref. My point on the Isa one is the ref didn't see the incident in real time and was referred back to it by the video ref. As I say, I don't know if this is definitive but I am speculating why an obvious incident like this didn't result in a yellow or red on the day. As we know the NRL bunker has complete authority in this regard , I’d have presumed the VR has similar authority if he sees something blatant as he’s an aid to the referee . Surely we must have seen the VR instruct the ref on something he’s missed before , dunno I just presume so . On the debate around tv / non tv discrepancies that’s there by definition across a myriad of things given the system here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, DavidM said: As we know the NRL bunker has complete authority in this regard , I’d have presumed the VR has similar authority if he sees something blatant as he’s an aid to the referee . Surely we must have seen the VR instruct the ref on something he’s missed before , dunno I just presume so . On the debate around tv / non tv discrepancies that’s there by definition across a myriad of things given the system here Fair enough, I am merely speculating so may well be wrong. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidM Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, Dunbar said: Fair enough, I am merely speculating so may well be wrong. Indeed , maybe he just got it wrong ( again as weve seen before ) . Even with technology theres an element of opinion . I think a three game ban shows Isa was leniently dealt with at the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 2 hours ago, dkw said: Absolutely laughable, RFL disciplinary embarrassing itself as usual. Its not the disciplinary panel that is embarrassing itself as usual, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Dockhouse Host Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 5 hours ago, JohnM said: Respect the officials, the disciplinary process and the speed of action. They are independent and obviously no ex-Saints players are on the board. Phil Vievers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M j M Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 So is the argument from St Helens this week that the disciplinary panel are being ridiculously heavy-handed because they are over-reacting to the game's agreed head injury protocols or they are disgracefully lenient because they're so out of touch with the game? I do lose track of things so quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvusxiii Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 Liam Watts must be feeling lucky to be still to be playing for the rest of the season! TESTICULI AD BREXITAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davo5 Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 6 matches for Isa would have been about right. How Bentley only got 1 match for the rubbish he dished out is equally as puzzling. Bateman is very unlucky to get a ban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 5 minutes ago, Davo5 said: Bateman is very unlucky to get a ban I'm OK with a player getting a ban for foul and abusive language directed towards an official. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davo5 Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 7 minutes ago, Dunbar said: I'm OK with a player getting a ban for foul and abusive language directed towards an official. He was punished by spending another 10 mins in the bin after his earlier ridiculous binning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 1 minute ago, Davo5 said: He was punished by spending another 10 mins in the bin after his earlier ridiculous binning. Not sure what you are arguing here. Are you saying that players who serve time in the bin should not suffer a subsequent ban because they have already been punished? "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, Davo5 said: He was punished by spending another 10 mins in the bin after his earlier ridiculous binning. Double post "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davo5 Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 Just now, Dunbar said: Not sure what you are arguing here. Are you saying that players who serve time in the bin should not suffer a subsequent ban because they have already been punished? For dissent yes,if it was that bad surely the ref would have sent him off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 6 minutes ago, Davo5 said: For dissent yes,if it was that bad surely the ref would have sent him off. Well, I agree with you there. If a player uses foul and abusive language towards a referee then he should be sent off. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 2 hours ago, johnh1 said: This happens all the time with televised games. A player goes down injured. The clock is stopped. The ref consults with the video ref and the player is sent off. Wouldn’t happen in a non televised game. So why is this incident different? Because he didn’t stop the game on that tackle there were ptbs before he stopped the game I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Prendle Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 Nothing wrong with the length of the ban issued to Isa in my opinion. What is hilarious is the outrage from Saints fans considering the level of thuggery dished out to Castleford last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim2 Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 10 hours ago, Dunbar said: Well, I agree with you there. If a player uses foul and abusive language towards a referee then he should be sent off. It's certainly permissable within the Laws. The Laws do give refs a lot of leeway here, which is good. However players know that they can try to push this with refs because the refs know the consequences to the game of giving out a red card for what some fans perceive as "nothing". Power to dismiss 6. In the event of misconduct by a player, the Referee shall, at his discretion, caution, temporarily suspend for ten minutes, or dismiss the offender. Definition of misconduct 1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he: (f) uses offensive or obscene language. (g) disputes a decision of the Referee or Touch Judge. "I am the avenging angel; I come with wings unfurled, I come with claws extended from halfway round the world. I am the God Almighty, I am the howling wind. I care not for your family; I care not for your kin. I come in search of terror, though terror is my own; I come in search of vengeance for crimes and crimes unknown. I care not for your children, I care not for your wives, I care not for your country, I care not for your lives." - (c) Jim Boyes - "The Avenging Angel" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleEyePie Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 11 hours ago, Dunbar said: Not sure what you are arguing here. Are you saying that players who serve time in the bin should not suffer a subsequent ban because they have already been punished? I think it's more a case of if what Bateman said is worthy of the punishment of missing an entire game why didn't he miss the rest of the Saints game and get sent off? If the ref is the best placed to determine what is unacceptable and he deems it worth 10 minutes in the bin how is it then worth missing a whole game after the fact? If an offence is not worth being sent off for in the game in which it takes place how can it be worth missing a full game afterwards? Why wasn't Bentley sent off if what he did is so bad he should miss a game? If any offence is worth at least a one game ban surely it logically has to be a red card offence. I know it's partly to take pressure off the refs as they don't have the opportunity to study an incident in depth, but we all know of offences that will get a player sin binned but also see them banned for at least a game by the disciplinary. That discrepancy doesn't make any sense. Of course with Bateman we don't know what he said which makes a difference. We just know he used foul and abusive language while disputing a decision. If he said something like "what the Foggin-Johnson was that for?" it wouldn't be as serious as if he said "what was that for you Foggin-Johnson?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Toppy Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 12 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said: Phil Vievers The 2 ex-players on the board this week are Turley & Morley. Can't wait to see what happens if Wigan appeal given its Danny Sculthorpe on the next panel St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Dockhouse Host Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 2 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said: The 2 ex-players on the board this week are Turley & Morley. Can't wait to see what happens if Wigan appeal given its Danny Sculthorpe on the next panel I that the appeals board Toppy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davo5 Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 25 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said: The 2 ex-players on the board this week are Turley & Morley. Can't wait to see what happens if Wigan appeal given its Danny Sculthorpe on the next panel A one match reduction maybe,if Lam turns around and says the team will really,really miss him. Worked for Makinson, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Toppy Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 1 hour ago, David Dockhouse Host said: I that the appeals board Toppy? Presumably as he's listed as being on the board from Wed 25th. St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.