Tonight’s Disciplinary

[Ovenden Grunt]

10 hours ago, LeeF said:

Any evidence to support this?

Fax player 8 match ban.

Saints player 3 match ban.

Same offence.

[Jughead]

4 minutes ago, Ovenden Grunt said:

Fax player 8 match ban.

Saints player 3 match ban.

Same offence.

Different grades. 

Myth busted. 

[LeeF]

29 minutes ago, Ovenden Grunt said:

Fax player 8 match ban.

Saints player 3 match ban.

Same offence.

Different grades

Different bans

It’s really not very difficult 

As I recommended to your fellow conspiracy theorist, sorry, Halifax fan, try watching the Sin Bin programmes on the RFL site. They have episodes clearly explaining how the disciplinary process works. I guarantee it will increase your knowledge and understanding and maybe even give you a more balanced outlook on the game 

[Ovenden Grunt]

26 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Different grades. 

Myth busted. 

Codswallop. A duck is a duck.

Two ducks  .

[LeeF]

28 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Different grades. 

Myth busted. 

Be careful you’ll blow his mind with logic and facts

Edited July 20, 2022 by LeeF

[LeeF]

Just now, Ovenden Grunt said:

Codswallop. A duck is a duck.

Two ducks  .

You’ve lost the argument. 

[Ovenden Grunt]

16 minutes ago, LeeF said:

You’ve lost the argument. 

Says who?

[JohnM]

1 minute ago, Ovenden Grunt said:

Says who?

#MeToo

Edited July 20, 2022 by JohnM

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, Ovenden Grunt said:

Says who?

Just about everyone except you & your mate on this thread. Or putting it another way those who haven’t lost it and can see and understand what happened. 

[Davo5]

15 minutes ago, Ovenden Grunt said:

Says who?

Anyone with 2 eyes ?

[The Blues Ox]

55 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Just about everyone except you & your mate on this thread. Or putting it another way those who haven’t lost it and can see and understand what happened. 

Ok so you have watched the videos on the RFL site so you have a great understanding of the process and have no doubt seen both incidents, maybe you could explain the thought process behind the differences in the bans and explain to us the reasons as other than the different grades there is not much in the RFL's explanation that makes it clear. 

 

[LeeF]

31 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Ok so you have watched the videos on the RFL site so you have a great understanding of the process and have no doubt seen both incidents, maybe you could explain the thought process behind the differences in the bans and explain to us the reasons as other than the different grades there is not much in the RFL's explanation that makes it clear. 

 

I’m not the RFL or any part of the disciplinary process but even you should be able to understand that differently graded incidents result in different lengths of bans and that even incidents which are graded the same can result in different lengths of ban if the offender has “previous”. It really isn’t difficult and if you want to read further on the process there are a number of articles and links on the RFL site along with the previously mentioned videos. 
The only people who don’t understand are either doing it deliberately as they are trolls or are too stupid to understand or realise they are wrong and won’t back down. I’ll leave it to you to decide which category you fall into. 
PS I look forward to my “laugh” reaction which seems to be your default reaction 

[David Dockhouse Host]

3 hours ago, Ovenden Grunt said:

Fax player 8 match ban.

Saints player 3 match ban.

Same offence.

Just watched the Halifax one, it's quite different.

Barrow player had been pinched in the face several times, was down on his haunches and the Fax player came round used both hands and aggressively lifted him.

So I would say the differences are the player was clearly hurt from being pinched, two hands used, and lifted higher than the Sione example.

Whether that's worth 5 more matches I don't know but not a like for like example.

You may feel they deserve the same anyway, issue with that is lunches can be very different, a little warning jab or a big haymaker. If judged the same Ben Flower wouldn't have for 6 months.

[Ovenden Grunt]

8 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Just watched the Halifax one, it's quite different.

Barrow player had been pinched in the face several times, was down on his haunches and the Fax player came round used both hands and aggressively lifted him.

So I would say the differences are the player was clearly hurt from being pinched, two hands used, and lifted higher than the Sione example.

Whether that's worth 5 more matches I don't know but not a like for like example.

You may feel they deserve the same anyway, issue with that is lunches can be very different, a little warning jab or a big haymaker. If judged the same Ben Flower wouldn't have for 6 months.

If you really think Titus was aggressive you watched a different game to me. 

[The Blues Ox]

10 hours ago, LeeF said:

I’m not the RFL or any part of the disciplinary process but even you should be able to understand that differently graded incidents result in different lengths of bans and that even incidents which are graded the same can result in different lengths of ban if the offender has “previous”. It really isn’t difficult and if you want to read further on the process there are a number of articles and links on the RFL site along with the previously mentioned videos. 
The only people who don’t understand are either doing it deliberately as they are trolls or are too stupid to understand or realise they are wrong and won’t back down. I’ll leave it to you to decide which category you fall into. 
PS I look forward to my “laugh” reaction which seems to be your default reaction 

You ever thought of becoming an MP? A very nice roundabout way of not answering the question which is pretty much what I expected from you and you didn't disappoint. 

[The Blues Ox]

9 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Just watched the Halifax one, it's quite different.

Barrow player had been pinched in the face several times, was down on his haunches and the Fax player came round used both hands and aggressively lifted him.

So I would say the differences are the player was clearly hurt from being pinched, two hands used, and lifted higher than the Sione example.

Whether that's worth 5 more matches I don't know but not a like for like example.

You may feel they deserve the same anyway, issue with that is lunches can be very different, a little warning jab or a big haymaker. If judged the same Ben Flower wouldn't have for 6 months.

The thing is I have never argued that one size fits all (even though LeeF was too stupid to recognise sarcasm) and each case should be taken seperatly and because of that I totally understand what you are saying but again the rule about lifting players was brought in to try and avoid moving players who may have hidden serious neck or spine injuries. Now maybe I am been stupid here, but in only one of those incidents was there an elevated risk of a serious neck or spine injury. Its the reason why I keep wondering why there is disparity bewteen the 2 incidents even though they are different it does seem to me the one at most risk of serious injury got off the lightest.

[LeeF]

39 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

You ever thought of becoming an MP? A very nice roundabout way of not answering the question which is pretty much what I expected from you and you didn't disappoint. 

I answered the question. Just because you didn’t like the answer is on you. 

[LeeF]

32 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

The thing is I have never argued that one size fits all (even though LeeF was too stupid to recognise sarcasm) and each case should be taken seperatly and because of that I totally understand what you are saying but again the rule about lifting players was brought in to try and avoid moving players who may have hidden serious neck or spine injuries. Now maybe I am been stupid here, but in only one of those incidents was there an elevated risk of a serious neck or spine injury. Its the reason why I keep wondering why there is disparity bewteen the 2 incidents even though they are different it does seem to me the one at most risk of serious injury got off the lightest.

So much truth in that bit in bold whilst you continue to argue black is white and to dig a deeper hole (no sarcasm) 

[Simon Hall]

Halifax fans would be better questioning their own club or coach as to why they've had so many players sin binned/sent off in matches and so many bans, rather than questioning the RFLs integrity and arguing with everyone on social media IMO.

 

 

[OriginalMrC]

There are some teams that attract more bans than others. I'll go out on a limb and say it's not because of a conspiracy against the club. I wonder what it could be?

[LeeF]

57 minutes ago, Simon Hall said:

Halifax fans would be better questioning their own club or coach as to why they've had so many players sin binned/sent off in matches and so many bans, rather than questioning the RFLs integrity and arguing with everyone on social media IMO.

 

 

It’s just easier to blame others rather than face the truth sometimes

[Ovenden Grunt]

1 hour ago, Simon Hall said:

Halifax fans would be better questioning their own club or coach as to why they've had so many players sin binned/sent off in matches and so many bans, rather than questioning the RFLs integrity and arguing with everyone on social media IMO.

 

 

York v Halifax. No on reports. No yellow cards. No red cards. Halifax have four players banned. Summat's not right.

[Davo5]

6 minutes ago, Ovenden Grunt said:

York v Halifax. No on reports. No yellow cards. No red cards. Halifax have four players banned. Summat's not right.

Halifax’s discipline obviously 

[Simon Hall]

22 minutes ago, Ovenden Grunt said:

York v Halifax. No on reports. No yellow cards. No red cards. Halifax have four players banned. Summat's not right.

Like I say, take it up with the people in charge at your club.

In the 3 games I've seen Halifax play this season, you've had 2 sin-bins & 2 reds, followed up by (at least) 6 players getting bans, for things like punching, dangerous contact, dangerous throws and late hits with one player getting 8 matches for picking up an injured player, so you can see why in my view Halifax are a dirty side. Fair play on winning those game, but your team has done it by going over the top physically.

[Ovenden Grunt]

1 hour ago, Davo5 said:

Halifax’s discipline obviously 

The officials on the day saw nowt wrong with Fax's discipline. If we start going through games tackle by tackle we'll have no players left. Rugby League is a contact sport and it's about time common sense prevailed.