This Week’s Disciplinary

[Chrispmartha]

Also, I don’t know if this has changed but they say the disciplinary is totally independent of what the referee on the day says, so does that mean the cards are irrelevant in sentencing?

if a player gets a red right at the start of the game are the disciplinary no longer able to deem sending off sufficient? 

[Dave T]

26 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Id suggest the reviewer needs to take a trip to the opticians then.

I can only assume they have another angle, but it doesn't look a good hit. 

[EagleEyePie]

No surprise on the charges for Ellis and Dezaria. It definitely seemed to fit the Grade E category based on the revised criteria. I know some people miss the biff but I think it's getting harder and harder to argue against severe punishments for stuff like that. On the one hand part of me thinks if two players want to throw punches at each other and don't bring anyone else into it then why not let them, but if you allow it then it becomes harder to draw a line that protects players who don't particularly want to get involved in stuff like that but get drawn in.

No complaints about Singleton getting a 2 game ban either. Can't remember when it happened or what happened exactly but it's Singleton so of course he deserved it. He's now been banned 3 times in 4 months of Super League competition for a total of 7 games. If he was a player whose aggressive edge made him an outstanding player I wouldn't complain, but he's currently an average player whose aggressive edge is more like plain stupidity and he keeps missing games as a result.

[LeeF]

59 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Also, I don’t know if this has changed but they say the disciplinary is totally independent of what the referee on the day says, so does that mean the cards are irrelevant in sentencing?

if a player gets a red right at the start of the game are the disciplinary no longer able to deem sending off sufficient? 

Not according to this

https://www.rugby-league.com/flipbooks/2022-operational-rules-tiers-1-3/index.html#p=327

The Disciplinary has always been separate from the Match Officials and both are totally independent from the MRP

[Lowdesert]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

How’s this not picked up?

 

Looked bad that.  First time I’ve seen it.  

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I can only assume they have another angle, but it doesn't look a good hit. 

It’s sad that the game is going through a period when Referees are under such scrutiny.  These type of shots with the elbow really shouldn’t be missed though.

[UTK]

8 hours ago, EagleEyePie said:

No surprise on the charges for Ellis and Dezaria. It definitely seemed to fit the Grade E category based on the revised criteria. I know some people miss the biff but I think it's getting harder and harder to argue against severe punishments for stuff like that. On the one hand part of me thinks if two players want to throw punches at each other and don't bring anyone else into it then why not let them, but if you allow it then it becomes harder to draw a line that protects players who don't particularly want to get involved in stuff like that but get drawn in.

No complaints about Singleton getting a 2 game ban either. Can't remember when it happened or what happened exactly but it's Singleton so of course he deserved it. He's now been banned 3 times in 4 months of Super League competition for a total of 7 games. If he was a player whose aggressive edge made him an outstanding player I wouldn't complain, but he's currently an average player whose aggressive edge is more like plain stupidity and he keeps missing games as a result.

What is the player who receives the first punch meant to do in such a situation though? Eat punches until his heads caved in so he's not out for a month? I can understand copping a week or two for a retaliation but having both the thrower of the first punch and the responder receiving the same penalty seems rather puzzling.

[Davo5]

12 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

Looked bad that.  First time I’ve seen it.  

Leading with the elbow  can & often results in serious injury to defending players & should should result in long bans,this one was a shocker.

[Lowdesert]

4 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Leading with the elbow  can & often results in serious injury to defending players & should should result in long bans,this one was a shocker.

Interesting that the disciplinary had already considered an incident involving Connor leading with the arm but deemed there was no case to answer.  I can only assume that the Panel had not seen this other incident or hadn’t had it reported.  

If the genuine intention is to totally eradicate head injury, which I think it is, then the Powers that be need to consider evaluating this tackle and tackles like these.  If they do nothing then is it a case of ‘silence is consent’?

[Saint Toppy]

15 hours ago, Davo5 said:

4-8 games for a couple of punches is getting ridiculous now.

Not when you look at what's happened away from the sport. There's been numerous fatalities and serious injuries resulting from a single punch to the head on members of the public. 1 punch can be fatal so by sending out a clear message to players that its not acceptable on the pitch then they go a long way to mitigating that possibility.

[Chrispmartha]

24 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Interesting that the disciplinary had already considered an incident involving Connor leading with the arm but deemed there was no case to answer.  I can only assume that the Panel had not seen this other incident or hadn’t had it reported.  

If the genuine intention is to totally eradicate head injury, which I think it is, then the Powers that be need to consider evaluating this tackle and tackles like these.  If they do nothing then is it a case of ‘silence is consent’?

The Matty Lees one is in the report, they deemed no direct contact with the head - I'm really not sure what they watching to come to that decision.

[Saint Toppy]

15 hours ago, Dave T said:

That's not really true. Lees' incident was described as 'Leads with elbow' which is illegal. 

He faces no charge as the reviewer suggests he didn't hit the tacklers head. 

Leading with the elbow isn't illegal, never has been. Players have been using the arm to bump players off for as long as I can ever remember watching the game. What is illegal is to lead with the elbow above the shoulder and/or make contact with the head or neck of a defender, none of which Lees did. He put his elbow into the chest of the defender and even though the arm then came up after contact there was no contact with the defenders head - Hence no charge. 

[EagleEyePie]

5 hours ago, UTK said:

What is the player who receives the first punch meant to do in such a situation though? Eat punches until his heads caved in so he's not out for a month? I can understand copping a week or two for a retaliation but having both the thrower of the first punch and the responder receiving the same penalty seems rather puzzling.

I think in this incident both players were guilty of striking though. Dezaria struck Ellis while he was on the ground, Ellis then threw the first punch and Dezaria started throwing back. I think both got two punches in. It didn't look like anyone was actually defending themselves in that situation. It's possible that self defence might still be presented as mitigation but really it was stupidity from both players who seemed more than keen for a fight.

[Exiled Wiganer]

In Toppy’s world the tackler should be banned. 

[Davo5]

9 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

In Toppy’s world the tackler should be banned. 

As the sport looks to expand its footprint it’s always interesting to hear from someone on a different planet.

[Saint Toppy]

9 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

As the sport looks to expand its footprint it’s always interesting to hear from someone on a different planet.

Using the arm, elbow or shoulder for that matter into the chest of a defender isn't illegal, never has been.

At least I understand the rules of what's illegal and what isn't with the use of the arm & elbow - pity you don't !!!

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

The Matty Lees one is in the report, they deemed no direct contact with the head - I'm really not sure what they watching to come to that decision.

Yeah it is mate.  Missed that so apologies.  Either way I am very surprised it didn't warrant a caution for the future. 

From the short clip, his elbow is travelling upwards.  Difficult to prove 'intent' so I imagine that is why no case to answer.  

[redjonn]

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Leading with the elbow isn't illegal, never has been. Players have been using the arm to bump players off for as long as I can ever remember watching the game. What is illegal is to lead with the elbow above the shoulder and/or make contact with the head or neck of a defender, none of which Lees did. He put his elbow into the chest of the defender and even though the arm then came up after contact there was no contact with the defenders head - Hence no charge. 

well if you watch the video, he did exactly what you say is illegal.  His elbow made contact with the players head, and then neck, both as far as I am aware above the players shoulders.  Oh and Lee's elbow was above his shoulder.

I guess we see different things in the video... as to whether he should receive a ban is another issue but he clearly hit the opposition players head and neck.

[Saint Toppy]

16 minutes ago, redjonn said:

well if you watch the video, he did exactly what you say is illegal.  His elbow made contact with the players head, and then neck, both as far as I am aware above the players shoulders.  Oh and Lee's elbow was above his shoulder.

I guess we see different things in the video... as to whether he should receive a ban is another issue but he clearly hit the opposition players head and neck.

Did it ? - seems what I saw in the video is exactly what the disciplinary panel saw with first contact on the chest with the arm then coming up and not hitting the head. And they have all the camera angles to review not just the one in that clip.

The way Lees went into that tackle was risky, Get it right and it hurts the defender trying to tackle him (which is what happened), get it slightly wrong and hit the defenders head and you end up copping a lengthy ban.

 

[redjonn]

5 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Did it ? - seems what I saw in the video is exactly what the disciplinary panel saw with first contact on the chest with the arm then coming up and not hitting the head. And they have all the camera angles to review not just the one in that clip.

The way Lees went into that tackle was risky, Get it right and it hurts the defender trying to tackle him (which is what happened), get it slightly wrong and hit the defenders head and you end up copping a lengthy ban.

 

well just watched again... to me it hits head and neck... but as you say maybe the other angles may say something else....

although the Warrington players head moves with the impact - so it must have hit him...

As I say whether a ban or not is  a different topic... but to me I can't see why another angle would show that his head doesn't move with the elbow contact then into his neck... although into his neck was a result of his head moving on impact.

we see things differently on the video...

[S.T.I.D.]

It will be interesting a couple of months down the track when we could get more and more long bans and then clubs start complaining they can't get full strength teams on the pitch week in week out. Will be an advantage for clubs who have good squad depth.

[Barry Badrinath]

56 minutes ago, redjonn said:

well just watched again... to me it hits head and neck... but as you say maybe the other angles may say something else....

although the Warrington players head moves with the impact - so it must have hit him...

As I say whether a ban or not is  a different topic... but to me I can't see why another angle would show that his head doesn't move with the elbow contact then into his neck... although into his neck was a result of his head moving on impact.

we see things differently on the video...

You forget, warrington players feign injury at sintellins, they went full Qanon about it last year.

 

Toby King wasn't injured, he didn't miss 6 weeks with a knee ligament injury, chem trails are a real thing 

[Exiled Wiganer]

2 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Did it ? - seems what I saw in the video is exactly what the disciplinary panel saw with first contact on the chest with the arm then coming up and not hitting the head. And they have all the camera angles to review not just the one in that clip.

The way Lees went into that tackle was risky, Get it right and it hurts the defender trying to tackle him (which is what happened), get it slightly wrong and hit the defenders head and you end up copping a lengthy ban.

 

Good work. You should never take a backward step. You are a one man/woman SDL -  our very own Lavtopski. 

[Harry Stottle]

7 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

The Matty Lees one is in the report, they deemed no direct contact with the head - I'm really not sure what they watching to come to that decision.

It could have been a video plea from Johnny Vegas protesting Lee's innocence.

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Good work. You should never take a backward step. You are a one man/woman SDL -  our very own Lavtopski. 

Aaawww diddums has mummy not managed to find you your dummy again yet after you spat it out after another thrashing in France