This week's disciplinary.

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

So how do we go about forming a breakaway league then? Let's call it the TRFL, the Total Rugby Football League. Who's gonna be in it? Leigh obviously, who else? 

Where do I sign,

Can we have an academy just to stop Sints, Wiggin and Wire coming in for the Leigh lads?

[SalfordSlim]

The stuff being posted on RedVee is by and large an absolute embarassment by the majority. Fair play to those who are calling the RFL out but they're by far in the minority. One "not very happy" (work it out) poster being probably the worst of them and looking forward to seeing what he's got to say on here.

Now Saints fans don't like the Scousers tag but there sure is a victim mentality/never our fault vibe going around at the moment. You've pretty much signed your own death warrant on that one lads & lasses.

Edited September 22, 2022 by SalfordSlim

[Jinking Jimmy]

3 hours ago, JohnM said:

The Bateman situation and now this preposterous turn of events is disturbing. I've previously been fully supportive of the RFLs disciplinary processes and decisions, taking any  criticism as those of partizan fans and conspiracy theoreticians.

This stinks, though and I trust that media can raise awareness of the disquiet expressed by fans.

 

The Bateman situation should never have arisen. He should have been available for England selection but banned for the first 3 SL games of next season. He was playing for Wigan when the incident happened and Wigan should suffer the consequences.

[Davo5]

46 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Has anyone seen the full disciplinary report yet. 

They’ve approached J K Rowling to write it.

[Jughead]

Just now, Davo5 said:

They’ve approached J K Rowling to write it.

Too believable with all those wizards and spells. 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

29 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Where do I sign,

Can we have an academy just to stop Sints, Wiggin and Wire coming in for the Leigh lads?

Well we'll have to draw up some sort of charter first. We'll get the fellas that are writing up the disciplinary report to compose it cos they seem to be good at making up fairy stories. 

You can have an academy at Leigh. None of those teams will come in for the academy lads anyway cos once all the sponsors and tv networks see the revolutionary work we're doing on the back of a beer mat, all the money will come our way. 

[Wolford6]

I can understand someone being let off from a one-game ban, but not this. What Morgan Knowles did looked deliberate and was nasty. Frankly, I didn't think a two-game ban was enough in the first place.

[daz39]

So with Walmsley out and Knowles banned Saints' pack was severely weakened, i reckon McManus and co put crocodile tears on and gave some spiel about it not being good for the spectacle to have 2 players of that ilk missing and it will devalue the final around the world .....either that or they have compromising photos of the panel/trial members.

I still can't believe they have got away with this, it's clearly a decision based on the fact that he would miss the grand final and he's too big a player to miss this, i bet Jake Wingfield or Dan Norman wouldn't have got off, it's a shocking decision based on who the player is and not the actual incident, everyone can see that, don't give us bull ###### about 'range of movements' etc.

At least now we can all laugh at Saints fans moaning next year when their players are victims of this new legal tackle technique.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

11 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

You know what, put your phone down goose, you're so ###### mad right now. Just try to get some sleep. I might not even be a RL fan in the morning at this rate. Night everyone. 

It's morning....you still a fan or what?

[hunsletgreenandgold]

Somebody in the RFL offices has been sat with their finger hovering over the 'publish' button all morning, for these appeal minutes to be released. I'm not expecting to read anything to change my mind, that this is an absolute disgrace, but it will be very interesting to see how it's span. 

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

The Bateman situation should never have arisen. He should have been available for England selection but banned for the first 3 SL games of next season. He was playing for Wigan when the incident happened and Wigan should suffer the consequences.

Rimmer was asked about this last night at the RLWC forum and he put forward the position that it doesn't sit right with him that a player could commit a serious foul next week in the Grand Final on a big stage, and then a couple of weeks later run out representing England in the opener. He said it's something they review and both here and the NRL have landed on the position of bans being across club and test level. 

The punishment needs to be against Bateman, not Wigan. If he signed for another club in the off-season, the ban would be for him, not Wigan.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 hours ago, Live after death said:

 

this could gave long term damage to the game. 
no more world cup tickets for me and nitveat hung in tv boycotting the whole event now

I've just pulled out of organising a group of five of us to the Emirates semi final.....(I'm the league fan pushing it amongst southern mates )

Thank God I didn't book it last weekend when I was supposed to

I'll save the money to spend on something less corrupt like Russian oil or South African blood diamonds 

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Rimmer was asked about this last night at the RLWC forum and he put forward the position that it doesn't sit right with him that a player could commit a serious foul next week in the Grand Final on a big stage, and then a couple of weeks later run out representing England in the opener. He said it's something they review and both here and the NRL have landed on the position of bans being across club and test level. 

The punishment needs to be against Bateman, not Wigan. If he signed for another club in the off-season, the ban would be for him, not Wigan.

Then the solution of "you are banned from international competition until your domestic ban has been served" comes into play?

Not one I agree with but if that's the logic then that's a solution.

[gingerjon]

20 minutes ago, Wolford6 said:

I can understand someone being let off from a one-game ban, but not this. What Morgan Knowles did looked deliberate and was nasty. Frankly, I didn't think a two-game ban was enough in the first place.

Just marking this in the diary that this is our annual agreement about something.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

5 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

It's morning....you still a fan or what?

Is it morning? Well I've been fooled by how dark a day it is in rugby league land out there. 

[Jinking Jimmy]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Rimmer was asked about this last night at the RLWC forum and he put forward the position that it doesn't sit right with him that a player could commit a serious foul next week in the Grand Final on a big stage, and then a couple of weeks later run out representing England in the opener. He said it's something they review and both here and the NRL have landed on the position of bans being across club and test level. 

The punishment needs to be against Bateman, not Wigan. If he signed for another club in the off-season, the ban would be for him, not Wigan.

Fair comment.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Then the solution of "you are banned from international competition until your domestic ban has been served" comes into play?

Not one I agree with but if that's the logic then that's a solution.

That doesn't work. Somebody who gets a 1 match ban in the Grand Final for a minor incident would be banned for the whole World Cup.

Edited September 22, 2022 by Dave T

[gingerjon]

Just now, Dave T said:

That doesn't wor. Somebody who gets a 1 match ban in the Grand Final for a minor incident would be banned for the whole World Cup.

Of course it doesn't work because it's ridiculous to have domestic bans apply to internationals.

And reserve internationals.

And random games arranged so that players who would never play in them get to count a game towards a ban.

But it would be a way of avoiding Rimmer's issue.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

11 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I'll save the money to spend on something less corrupt like Russian oil or South African blood diamonds 

You can come in with me on a deal I've got going for supplying arms to African dissident organisations if you want. 

Edit. Just realised I used the word arm in that. I'm not talking about twisted arms, I'm talking about much less horrible things like trident missiles. 

Edited September 22, 2022 by The Hallucinating Goose

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Of course it doesn't work because it's ridiculous to have domestic bans apply to internationals.

And reserve internationals.

And random games arranged so that players who would never play in them get to count a game towards a ban.

But it would be a way of avoiding Rimmer's issue.

There isn't too much of an issue in serving your ban in internationals. I don't disagree with Rimmer, I think it can work both ways, but I don't see a major issue with a banned player being banned for internationals. As long as there is consistency across the comps I think.

The England Knights / Bateman request should be rejected imho - however I believe we allow a reserve game to count in SL if there is no first team game, so there is a consistency there. The Fiji game is fine being counted as a ban.

I think this messy situation shows that there maybe needs to be a touch of tidying, but it broadly works fine.

[Gomersall]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Rimmer was asked about this last night at the RLWC forum and he put forward the position that it doesn't sit right with him that a player could commit a serious foul next week in the Grand Final on a big stage, and then a couple of weeks later run out representing England in the opener. He said it's something they review and both here and the NRL have landed on the position of bans being across club and test level. 

The punishment needs to be against Bateman, not Wigan. If he signed for another club in the off-season, the ban would be for him, not Wigan.

So for future WCs the RFL can organise a 3 game series for the Knights or better still a 4 nations tournament prior to the WC kicking off, just in case

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There isn't too much of an issue in serving your ban in internationals. I don't disagree with Rimmer, I think it can work both ways, but I don't see a major issue with a banned player being banned for internationals. As long as there is consistency across the comps I think.

The England Knights / Bateman request should be rejected imho - however I believe we allow a reserve game to count in SL if there is no first team game, so there is a consistency there. The Fiji game is fine being counted as a ban.

I think this messy situation shows that there maybe needs to be a touch of tidying, but it broadly works fine.

Counting reserve games is silly. Simply shouldn't happen.

(By and large, assuming Super League and the Challenge Cup as being the same for admin purposes, "serve your ban in the competition in which the offence occurred" seems to work).

Anyway, I look forward to someone picking up a one match ban in the World Cup before being immediately loaned out to a club who then happen to arrange a senior friendly for which they are included in the squad.

[Gomersall]

IIRC reserve matches counted towards a ban in the old (pre SL) Alliance days.

[LeeF]

Going out on “loan” when you don’t have a game that week counts towards a ban and a number of clubs have used that loophole including this season.

 

 

[LeeF]

Maybe the best way to deal with domestic bans carrying over is that any Grade A-C I.e. the automatic ones are carried over into the next domestic season whilst the more serious D+ count towards International matches?