Jump to content

Disciplinary


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Toulouse and Laurent Belmas clearly not happy about his ban for an alleged attack to Tom Holmes' testicular area.

Toulouse have released a statement saying roughly (my translation) "In spite of a video which doesn't show any movement/gesture, the discplinary panel of the RFL has classed the alleged action as "Grade F" and the Operational tribunal has sentenced the Toulouse prop to a suspension of 7 matches."

The video's here. Probably inconclusive I'd say, you can see Holmes (number 1) move that part of his body sharply away but you can't see the alleged action from belmas (number 8). Whether the touch judge saw anything I don't know. Probably similar to the Flanagan case where they will have listened to the evidence from both parties and made their decision accordingly.
 

 

Yet in what seems to be a similar 'one word against another' case for attacking testicles against Swinton this year Bailey Antrobus was found to have no charge to answer. I wonder what was different in that case.

Edited by Barley Mow
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Toulouse and Laurent Belmas clearly not happy about his ban for an alleged attack to Tom Holmes' testicular area.

Toulouse have released a statement saying roughly (my translation) "In spite of a video which doesn't show any movement/gesture, the discplinary panel of the RFL has classed the alleged action as "Grade F" and the Operational tribunal has sentenced the Toulouse prop to a suspension of 7 matches."

The video's here. Probably inconclusive I'd say, you can see Holmes (number 1) move that part of his body sharply away but you can't see the alleged action from belmas (number 8). Whether the touch judge saw anything I don't know. Probably similar to the Flanagan case where they will have listened to the evidence from both parties and made their decision accordingly.
 

 

Belmas always said that there was no intent. Belmas maybe a tough mother on the pitch but he is absolutely convinced that there was nothing in this and was very shocked and upset by the result of the inquiry. 

The match review panel reviewed the incident and saw no evidence.  Holmes demanded further action. An independent review committee also saw no evidence or intent. Both players were interviewed, and the review committee sided with Holmes that Belmas was guilty, hence the 7 match ban and this statement.

This sets a dangerous precedent if it's just a players word that can get someone banned for 7 matches.  I can guarantee that this won't be the last such incident like this. 

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

2 hours ago, kiggy said:

Belmas always said that there was no intent. Belmas maybe a tough mother on the pitch but he is absolutely convinced that there was nothing in this and was very shocked and upset by the result of the inquiry. 

The match review panel reviewed the incident and saw no evidence.  Holmes demanded further action. An independent review committee also saw no evidence or intent. Both players were interviewed, and the review committee sided with Holmes that Belmas was guilty, hence the 7 match ban and this statement.

This sets a dangerous precedent if it's just a players word that can get someone banned for 7 matches.  I can guarantee that this won't be the last such incident like this. 

I know I’ve asked this before but do you know how the Disciplinary process is set up & run?
 

Any decision as to guilt or not is decided by an independent panel headed by a High Court Judge. The decision is made after viewing any video evidence and hearing any submissions either written or verbal. The final decision is then made based on this  information and on the basis of probability. 
 

There is also the option of an appeal if you don’t like the verdict or outcome something which happens on a fairly regular basis.

Interestingly your opening sentence implies that something happened so maybe not as “not guilty” as you try to make out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Toulouse and Laurent Belmas clearly not happy about his ban for an alleged attack to Tom Holmes' testicular area.

Toulouse have released a statement saying roughly (my translation) "In spite of a video which doesn't show any movement/gesture, the discplinary panel of the RFL has classed the alleged action as "Grade F" and the Operational tribunal has sentenced the Toulouse prop to a suspension of 7 matches."

The video's here. Probably inconclusive I'd say, you can see Holmes (number 1) move that part of his body sharply away but you can't see the alleged action from belmas (number 8). Whether the touch judge saw anything I don't know. Probably similar to the Flanagan case where they will have listened to the evidence from both parties and made their decision accordingly.
 

 

There is definitely an immediate reaction from Holmes and he seems to be bringing a matter to the attention of the TJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, LeeF said:

 

Interestingly your opening sentence implies that something happened so maybe not as “not guilty” as you try to make out.

There was contact, but there were 3 in the tackle. He doesn't deny the tackle, just the definition of "attacking the testicles" as that implies predetermined intent. You could argue that every tackle has the "intent" to cause serious harm and thus, after review, a long ban. If you allow the players to define the levels of intent then you are placing the reviewers and independent panels in a difficult position. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kiggy said:

There was contact, but there were 3 in the tackle. He doesn't deny the tackle, just the definition of "attacking the testicles" as that implies predetermined intent. You could argue that every tackle has the "intent" to cause serious harm and thus, after review, a long ban. If you allow the players to define the levels of intent then you are placing the reviewers and independent panels in a difficult position. 

And conveniently you ignore / delete the majority of my post which addresses your “concerns”.
The people who make the decision are fully independent and listen to and hear all the evidence from a number of sources but that doesn’t fit your agenda does it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LeeF said:

And conveniently you ignore / delete the majority of my post which addresses your “concerns”.
The people who make the decision are fully independent and listen to and hear all the evidence from a number of sources but that doesn’t fit your agenda does it

I have no agenda, I only wanted to comment on one part of your post, I wasn't doing it out of disrespect.  I don't need to address everything on a point by point basis or do I.  Please confirm. 

Oh, and to now address your point about the independent review, I understand that. In this case the decision was made on the evidence on one player

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kiggy said:

I have no agenda, I only wanted to comment on one part of your post, I wasn't doing it out of disrespect.  I don't need to address everything on a point by point basis or do I.  Please confirm. 

Oh, and to now address your point about the independent review, I understand that. In this case the decision was made on the evidence on one player

If you understand the independent part then your last sentence is just plain wrong but that’s par for the course as you seem to think that the entire game from the RFL to other clubs to the Disciplinary panels and now to players of other clubs have all got it in for you which isn’t the case.

I’ll leave you to your conspiracy theories.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/04/2023 at 22:38, Dave T said:

My gut feel is that 5 matches for these incidents is fine (they are pretty serious bans) , but there are questions about process that should be answered. 

Dudson was charged with E which has 4-6. It is surprising that with his record he hasn't received the maximum. I'm not sure what could be used as a mitigant in that incident. 

I'm not sure Knowles or anyone associated with him can have any complaints though. 5 matches for a tackle that rules a player out for 12m and is his 9th charge in 10 months feels about right. 

 

Mind you and in reality an unlikely and somewhat daft suggestion its always open to a club to make some additional comment or take additional action... like putting Dudson on extra leave of absence or up for sale given he is punching a prone player unable to defend himself. To me its a huge surprise he didn't get more, particularly given RL is also prone to crowd behaviour we would rather not have.   The grading of offence as in E was a surprise, surely it should have been at least F.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/04/2023 at 07:22, kiggy said:

I have no agenda, I only wanted to comment on one part of your post, I wasn't doing it out of disrespect.  I don't need to address everything on a point by point basis or do I.  Please confirm. 

Oh, and to now address your point about the independent review, I understand that. In this case the decision was made on the evidence on one player

And the panel decided that they believed him.

  • Sad 1

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

At least the RFL now have a steady revenue stream.

Both comps are doing alright for that when you see what players are getting fined and charged for now . The NRL must be rolling in it , the tolerance for foul play  there now 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben Reynolds (Leigh Leopards) - Grade B Trips - £250 Fine

Liam Hood (Wakefield Trinity) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - 1 Match Penalty Notice

Matt Davis (Leigh Leopards) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - £250 Fine

Liam Hood (Wakefield Trinity) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - 1 Match Penalty Notice

Josh Charnley (Leigh Leopards) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - £250 Fine

 

This all just looks very odd 🤔 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, dkw said:

Ben Reynolds (Leigh Leopards) - Grade B Trips - £250 Fine

Liam Hood (Wakefield Trinity) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - 1 Match Penalty Notice

Matt Davis (Leigh Leopards) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - £250 Fine

Liam Hood (Wakefield Trinity) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - 1 Match Penalty Notice

Josh Charnley (Leigh Leopards) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - £250 Fine

 

This all just looks very odd 🤔 

Are you surprised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, dkw said:

Ben Reynolds (Leigh Leopards) - Grade B Trips - £250 Fine

Liam Hood (Wakefield Trinity) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - 1 Match Penalty Notice

Matt Davis (Leigh Leopards) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - £250 Fine

Liam Hood (Wakefield Trinity) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - 1 Match Penalty Notice

Josh Charnley (Leigh Leopards) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - £250 Fine

 

This all just looks very odd 🤔 

There are a few things I find odd about it. What do you find odd about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dkw said:

Ben Reynolds (Leigh Leopards) - Grade B Trips - £250 Fine

Liam Hood (Wakefield Trinity) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - 1 Match Penalty Notice

Matt Davis (Leigh Leopards) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - £250 Fine

Liam Hood (Wakefield Trinity) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - 1 Match Penalty Notice

Josh Charnley (Leigh Leopards) - Grade B Dangerous Contact - £250 Fine

 

This all just looks very odd 🤔 

Being at the game can't say I observed any of these incidents.

iIt won't be long before breaking wind will be a fining offence and if it's a smelly one that will carry a number of match notices depending on the severity of the pungency, coaches will be banning the consumption of curries pre game day.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Being at the game can't say I observed any of these incidents.

iIt won't be long before breaking wind will be a fining offence and if it's a smelly one that will carry a number of match notices depending on the severity of the pungency, coaches will be banning the consumption of curries pre game day.

Am struggling to understand what the disciplinary process is trying to do. Did Liam Hood make two tackles that warranted a yellow or red card? Should the three Leigh players have been sin binned? Or are we giving out fines and bans for giving away penalties now?

I’d much prefer to see a system where match review panel identifies where somebody should’ve got a red card and give the appropriate ban, or overturn the red card where given in error. Then for all the incidents where a card isn’t warranted, but just a penalty on the day seems too light, I would have a points system and you get a one match ban when you reach a certain number of points. Similar to yellow cards in football. You stay on the pitch but get banned once you get 5 of them. 

Incidentally, I’m assuming Hood’s tackles were so late that they were after the full time whistle had gone because I can’t recall too much tackling going on during the game from him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Am struggling to understand what the disciplinary process is trying to do. Did Liam Hood make two tackles that warranted a yellow or red card? Should the three Leigh players have been sin binned? Or are we giving out fines and bans for giving away penalties now?

 

Thats the bit I didnt get, why was Liam Hood on twice, is it 2 incidents? In other ones on the list they have the incident pluralised, are these more than one incident 

"Ben Reynolds (Leigh Leopards) - Grade B Trips - £250 Fine"

The whole thing is a complete mess, you cant blame fans getting wound up when you see the same incident named for players with completely different punishments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

Thats the bit I didnt get, why was Liam Hood on twice, is it 2 incidents? In other ones on the list they have the incident pluralised, are these more than one incident 

"Ben Reynolds (Leigh Leopards) - Grade B Trips - £250 Fine"

The whole thing is a complete mess, you cant blame fans getting wound up when you see the same incident named for players with completely different punishments.

Yeah, the whole things is completely nonsensical. Can sort of understand the different punishments given each grade has a range assigned to it, but it’s part of a whole system that is, as you say, a mess.

Am guessing the Reynolds one is a typo. 

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
  • 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.