Jump to content

Disciplinary

JohnM

By JohnM
in The General Rugby League Forum

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted

Can someone remind me what was Gill Dudson was cited for? It couldn't have been that first minute incident could it as I thought there was not much in that.

"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
LeeF

LeeF

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Can someone remind me what was Gill Dudson was cited for? It couldn't have been that first minute incident could it as I thought there was not much in that.

If you click on the link on the article on the RFL site it is the incident in the first minute. It will be punching/ striking to the head

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davo5

Davo5

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, LeeF said:

If you click on the link on the article on the RFL site it is the incident in the first minute. It will be punching/ striking to the head

Didn’t think there was much in it,fair enough a sin bin but 3 matches is ridiculously harsh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yipyee

yipyee

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think that's a nasty tackle that needs to be outlawed. 

An amateur player got a season ban for similar, could break legs and ankles of opponent, its not as if these players earn millions or are millionaires, not fair to loose a season or a career from a reckless challenge

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davo5

Davo5

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, yipyee said:

An amateur player got a season ban for similar, could break legs and ankles of opponent, its not as if these players earn millions or are millionaires, not fair to loose a season or a career from a reckless challenge

There was nothing similar about that Thornhill players assault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yipyee

yipyee

Posted
Posted
Just now, Davo5 said:

There was nothing similar about that Thornhill players assault.

Really? Tackler leaves the ground with both feet and lunges them into the attackers ankles. Different angle of course and the Thornhill player with more intent hence the longer ban but the tackle technique (or lack of it) was the same

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davo5

Davo5

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Really? Tackler leaves the ground with both feet and lunges them into the attackers ankles. Different angle of course and the Thornhill player with more intent hence the longer ban but the tackle technique (or lack of it) was the same

Yeah really Vete left the ground which is nasty but unlike the Thornhill player didn’t make a deliberate 2 footed attack on the ball carrier.

I’m not excusing Vete,he deserved a longer ban but it wasn’t an assault like the earlier Thornhill players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yipyee

yipyee

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Davo5 said:

Yeah really Vete left the ground which is nasty but unlike the Thornhill player didn’t make a deliberate 2 footed attack on the ball carrier.

I’m not excusing Vete,he deserved a longer ban but it wasn’t an assault like the earlier Thornhill players.

Agreed and why one got a season and the other got a couple of games, same tackle style though, poor tackle technique needs to be penalised out of the game to protect the players, regardless of initial intent

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dkw

dkw

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Didn’t think there was much in it,fair enough a sin bin but 3 matches is ridiculously harsh.

I have no sympathy because the players were instructed before the season started on what the punishment is for striking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EagleEyePie

EagleEyePie

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure handing out increased suspensions for frivolous appeals when sentencing guidelines have just changed is the right thing for the appeals panel to be doing. All precedent and prior judgement will point to players receiving reduced punishments so how can players and clubs know what is a harsh or lenient punishment? For example, if punishment for an offence jumps from 0 or 1 match to 3 or 4 there's a legitimate question as to why it's not 2 games, until a precedent has been set.

I know there was criticism from a few people within the game about the disciplinary process and particularly the appeals side of things. Some of it came across as complaining because they didn't like a decision but there did seem to be some valid points raised too. I wonder if anything has changed, otherwise I expect more slagging off in the media which doesn't do anyone any favours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.