Jump to content

This week's disciplinary.

Dave T

By Dave T
in The General Rugby League Forum

Recommended Posts

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
  • Author
Posted
25 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am not sure if this is aimed at me (and apologies if it wasn't) but I am not claiming that this was a professional foul.  It was dangerous contact and foul play.

No it was aimed at the Saints appeal mate,  your discussion reminded me of that claim by them. 


  • Replies 709
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Dave T said:

No it was aimed at the Saints appeal mate,  your discussion reminded me of that claim by them. 

How dare you!

"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

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I don't see how it was a professional foul?

It wasn't.  It was dangerous contact.

But the Saints argument goes like this...

The tackled players arm didn't exceed its natural range and so couldn't have been a foul (dangerous contact) so it must have been 'just' an attempt to slow/disrupt the play the ball.

The match review panel didn't agree and banned him for 2 games for dangerous contact.

Then the first appeals hearing upheld the ban but (bizarrely) stated that they agreed with the defence laid out by Saints.

Then Saints took that to the second appeals panel and said, how can it be dangerous contact if the review panel agreed the arm wasn't extended beyond its natural range?

The second appeals panel could have just said the first review panel were talking nonsense and it was dangerous but they decided to support the Saints argument. 

(That is not what I think happened in the incident by the way... I am discussing what Saints said).

"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

Chrispmartha

Chrispmartha

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It wasn't.  It was dangerous contact.

But the Saints argument goes like this...

The tackled players arm didn't exceed its natural range and so couldn't have been a foul (dangerous contact) so it must have been 'just' an attempt to slow/disrupt the play the ball.

The match review panel didn't agree and banned him for 2 games for dangerous contact.

Then the first appeals hearing upheld the ban but (bizarrely) stated that they agreed with the defence laid out by Saints.

Then Saints took that to the second appeals panel and said, how can it be dangerous contact if the review panel agreed the arm wasn't extended beyond its natural range?

The second appeals panel could have just said the first review panel were talking nonsense and it was dangerous but they decided to support the Saints argument. 

(That is not what I think happened in the incident by the way... I am discussing what Saints said).

The problem is (and this is why it’s a farce imo) Is that the second appeal panel were not judging on the actual incident, they made no comment on it, it wasn’t an appeal of the MRPs findings only the ‘technicality’ and wording of the first appeals judgement, so IMO they shouldn’t be able to rule on the actual ban, they should have said it needs a ‘retrial’.

The second appeal judiciary have overturned a ban on an incident which they didn’t review.

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
  • Author
Posted
49 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It wasn't.  It was dangerous contact.

But the Saints argument goes like this...

The tackled players arm didn't exceed its natural range and so couldn't have been a foul (dangerous contact) so it must have been 'just' an attempt to slow/disrupt the play the ball.

The match review panel didn't agree and banned him for 2 games for dangerous contact.

Then the first appeals hearing upheld the ban but (bizarrely) stated that they agreed with the defence laid out by Saints.

Then Saints took that to the second appeals panel and said, how can it be dangerous contact if the review panel agreed the arm wasn't extended beyond its natural range?

The second appeals panel could have just said the first review panel were talking nonsense and it was dangerous but they decided to support the Saints argument. 

(That is not what I think happened in the incident by the way... I am discussing what Saints said).

We really do need to read the full finding from the first appeal,  as we are getting a second/third hand account of that hearing. 

But this has been one of my issues with the disciplinary for a while -  they often go out of their way to acknowledge and stress that players didn't do things on purpose,  there was no intent,  and almost try and play down the incidents.  I think this is possibly an example of that and it's come back to bite them on the ass. 

But we really are only getting a snippet of the information. 

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

The problem is (and this is why it’s a farce imo) Is that the second appeal panel were not judging on the actual incident, they made no comment on it, it wasn’t an appeal of the MRPs findings only the ‘technicality’ and wording of the first appeals judgement, so IMO they shouldn’t be able to rule on the actual ban, they should have said it needs a ‘retrial’.

The second appeal judiciary have overturned a ban on an incident which they didn’t review.

 

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We really do need to read the full finding from the first appeal,  as we are getting a second/third hand account of that hearing. 

But this has been one of my issues with the disciplinary for a while -  they often go out of their way to acknowledge and stress that players didn't do things on purpose,  there was no intent,  and almost try and play down the incidents.  I think this is possibly an example of that and it's come back to bite them on the ass. 

But we really are only getting a snippet of the information. 

Agree with both of these.

"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

David Dockhouse Host

David Dockhouse Host

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

It wasn't.  It was dangerous contact.

But the Saints argument goes like this...

The tackled players arm didn't exceed its natural range and so couldn't have been a foul (dangerous contact) so it must have been 'just' an attempt to slow/disrupt the play the ball.

The match review panel didn't agree and banned him for 2 games for dangerous contact.

Then the first appeals hearing upheld the ban but (bizarrely) stated that they agreed with the defence laid out by Saints.

Then Saints took that to the second appeals panel and said, how can it be dangerous contact if the review panel agreed the arm wasn't extended beyond its natural range?

The second appeals panel could have just said the first review panel were talking nonsense and it was dangerous but they decided to support the Saints argument. 

(That is not what I think happened in the incident by the way... I am discussing what Saints said).

Thanks, just seems like semantics to me that have been used to discredit the original ban. 

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Thanks, just seems like semantics to me that have been used to discredit the original ban. 

Yes, it certainly was.  As far we know from the information we have been given to date anyway.

It was a foul up by the first appeal panel.  Some will say Saints have taken the mickey and some will say they have been smart.

I guess they will say they did things by book and so within their rights.

I am not as outraged as most because I didn't think it was worth a 2 match ban in the first place (despite being dangerous contact) but I can absolutely see why others are.

"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

David Dockhouse Host

David Dockhouse Host

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, it certainly was.  As far we know from the information we have been given to date anyway.

It was a foul up by the first appeal panel.  Some will say Saints have taken the mickey and some will say they have been smart.

I guess they will say they did things by book and so within their rights.

I am not as outraged as most because I didn't think it was worth a 2 match ban in the first place (despite being dangerous contact) but I can absolutely see why others are.

Think I said earlier is it clever or exploitation, it's probably a bit of both. Some will think more of one and some the other.

It's just a poor look for Rugby League.

But a shameless opportunity to plug this again 😁🤣 Ian is coming on the show again next week, let's see what we have to discuss after tomorrow 😲 I'm going early, if you see me say hi 👋

 

 

 

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.