Jump to content

Disciplinary Question

Jughead
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jughead

Jughead

Posted
Posted

It’s not a moan about grading or someone not getting banned but I see Jack Ashworth was cited for a late hit on Jonny Lomax and the outcome was put down as “not applicable” yet other players on the list have their outcome as “no further action”. 

Does anyone know what the difference are in terms of the disciplinary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted

It is because there was no charge.  All cases where there is no charge show the sanction as N/A.

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OriginalMrC

OriginalMrC

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jughead said:

It’s not a moan about grading or someone not getting banned but I see Jack Ashworth was cited for a late hit on Jonny Lomax and the outcome was put down as “not applicable” yet other players on the list have their outcome as “no further action”. 

Does anyone know what the difference are in terms of the disciplinary?

Footage was reviewed and they decided no case to answer. Presumably they felt he was commited to the tackle and it wasn't a late hit 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moove

Moove

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

It is because there was no charge.  All cases where there is no charge show the sanction as N/A.

Says in the minutes that he was charged with grade A.

Think it's just a typo on the web page where it has NFA for Tom Davies but N/A in the minutes. Guessing N/A is just where the charge doesn't carry a penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Moove said:

Says in the minutes that he was charged with grade A.

Think it's just a typo on the web page where it has NFA for Tom Davies but N/A in the minutes. Guessing N/A is just where the charge doesn't carry a penalty.

Which minutes say that as the case details on the Rugby-League disciplinary page say there was no charge?

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance/rules-and-regulations/disciplinary/disciplinary-cases

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moove

Moove

Posted
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Which minutes say that as the case details on the Rugby-League disciplinary page say there was no charge?

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance/rules-and-regulations/disciplinary/disciplinary-cases

The ones linked from the article on the main page...

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/MRP Minutes 27 March 2023.pdf

Think the case summary on your link is wrong as it says 'No Charge' but then details the Grade A in the Charge Detail section.

Edited by Moove
  • Thanks 1
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
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.