Jump to content

Sat 3rd Sept: SL: Leeds Rhinos v Castleford Tigers KO 15:00 (Sky)


Who will win?  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • Leeds Rhinos
      29
    • Castleford Tigers
      5

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 03/09/22 at 14:30

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

The whole system isn’t fit for purpose.

Ref didn’t give a penalty 

Video Ref checked it and saw nothing in it

Weve got a start where the MRP are basically saying the two refs were wrong and then if you have the temerity to question it you get punished again.

its not bias, its incompetence.

I very much suspect IMG will look to other sports for their implementation of video technology and refereeing, alongside a complete rethink of the MRP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


29 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Appeal rejected and had another game added.

The MRP are an absolute joke at the moment.

Rightly extended for taking the micky with the appeal. 

The team this season is the most ill diciplined side in SL history. They deserve everything they get for continuing to flout the rules/laws of the game.  

Leave the head alone its that simple.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ragingbull said:

Rightly extended for taking the micky with the appeal. 

The team this season is the most ill diciplined side in SL history. They deserve everything they get for continuing to flout the rules/laws of the game.  

Leave the head alone its that simple.

 

 

Appealing a ban for an incident both the ref and video ref saw nothing wrong with is not taking the mickey or ‘frivolous 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ragingbull said:

Rightly extended for taking the micky with the appeal. 

The team this season is the most ill diciplined side in SL history. They deserve everything they get for continuing to flout the rules/laws of the game.  

Leave the head alone its that simple.

 

 

Yeah sorry but you aren't someone to be taken seriously.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Appealing a ban for an incident both the ref and video ref saw nothing wrong with is not taking the mickey or ‘frivolous 

Last time i checked you arent allowed to make contact with the head when making a tackle. 

Mellors nose was bust wide open blood all down his shirt.  I ask how that came to be if the was no contact with the head? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ragingbull said:

Last time i checked you arent allowed to make contact with the head when making a tackle. 

Mellors nose was bust wide open blood all down his shirt.  I ask how that came to be if the was no contact with the head? 

Then you don’t know the rules. If every contact with the head in a tackle was a ban we wouldn’t have many players playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Then you don’t know the rules. If every contact with the head in a tackle was a ban we wouldn’t have many players playing.

It was a high tackle. Refs or VR's missing it doesn't mean that it wasn't. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Then you don’t know the rules. If every contact with the head in a tackle was a ban we wouldn’t have many players playing.

Direct contact with the head that caused a bust nose.  Which bit of that is incorrect?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, M j M said:

Yeah sorry but you aren't someone to be taken seriously.

 Getting personal because someone dares to have a different oppion to yours.? 

You might want to think about if an internet forum is the right place for you to be spending your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

It was a high tackle, what it wasn’t was worth a one match let alone a two match ban.

 

I suppose that's open to debate,  i haven't seen why the disciplinary deemed the 1 match to be fine. 

From reading twitter (I know,  I know)  there are some claims that the appeal was claiming not guilty rather than challenging the severity.  I'd be surprised if they were that stupid though as that would be a basic error by Leeds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I suppose that's open to debate,  i haven't seen why the disciplinary deemed the 1 match to be fine. 

From reading twitter (I know,  I know)  there are some claims that the appeal was claiming not guilty rather than challenging the severity.  I'd be surprised if they were that stupid though as that would be a basic error by Leeds. 

It was the lowest grade wasn’t it? so couldn’t appeal on the severity.

 

i suppose the lack of openness from the MRP is part of the issue

Edited by Chrispmartha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

It was the lowest grade wasn’t it? so couldn’t appeal on the severity.

Not sure on the technicality around challenging the grading or the harsh punishment,  but in any case,  it can't be argued that he is not guilty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Not sure on the technicality around challenging the grading or the harsh punishment,  but in any case,  it can't be argued that he is not guilty. 

I’m not sure who’s been advising Leeds this season but they’ve been absolutely useless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Not sure on the technicality around challenging the grading or the harsh punishment,  but in any case,  it can't be argued that he is not guilty. 

Depends on what the actual charge was?

or is High Tackle - second player in wrapping up, the extent of their findings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Depends on what the actual charge was?

or is High Tackle - second player in wrapping up, the extent of their findings

Aye,  the admin is particularly poor.  Assume there will be more detail on the appeal outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, M j M said:

Yeah sorry but you aren't someone to be taken seriously.

Like I've said before he /she is a f*****g crank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...