Josh Charnley charged!!

[Cheadle Leyther]

According to RFL disciplinary, grade F charge, 6 match notice for interference with player injured. I thought he was helping said player? What’s going on?!!

[Jughead]

I’d Google what the definition of parody is if I were you. 

[Cheadle Leyther]

 Are you sure RFL disciplinary panel Twitter account is a parody account?

[Zilla Budgie]

15 minutes ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

 Are you sure RFL disciplinary panel Twitter account is a parody account?

Yeah, when the same account (yesterday) announced that Josh Maguire had been suspended for 24 games.

[Cheadle Leyther]

4 minutes ago, Zilla Budgie said:

Yeah, when the same account (yesterday) announced that Josh Maguire had been suspended for 24 games.

Thanks for the confirmation.

[RP London]

19 minutes ago, Zilla Budgie said:

Yeah, when the same account (yesterday) announced that Josh Maguire had been suspended for 24 games.

so you're saying it is the RFL account... 

[Harry Stottle]

5 hours ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

According to RFL disciplinary, grade F charge, 6 match notice for interference with player injured. I thought he was helping said player? What’s going on?!!

Not mentioned in the disciplinary notes of all the 45 yes 45 players who were adjudged to have commited a misdemeanour at the weekend and was reviewed, must say I watched all the games and it is beyond belief that an average of over 7 players per game were cited, I suppose it keeps the Disciplinary and MRP in a job and earning money, 

[TBone]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not mentioned in the disciplinary notes of all the 45 yes 45 players who were adjudged to have commited a misdemeanour at the weekend and was reviewed, must say I watched all the games and it is beyond belief that an average of over 7 players per game were cited, I suppose it keeps the Disciplinary and MRP in a job and earning money, 

in a job, yes. earning money, hmmm  

Edited June 6, 2023 by TBone

[Tippytoe]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not mentioned in the disciplinary notes of all the 45 yes 45 players who were adjudged to have commited a misdemeanour at the weekend and was reviewed, must say I watched all the games and it is beyond belief that an average of over 7 players per game were cited, I suppose it keeps the Disciplinary and MRP in a job and earning money, 

The Rfl annual ###### up should be a good do this year!

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, TBone said:

in a job, yes. earning money, hmmm  

Sorry miscounted there was 42 citings.

I think it may have escaped you that I was intimating it is easy to generate 'victims' to deliberate on by the MRP and so becomes a self financing exercise.

Did you watch all the games this weekend? If so please explain how as many as 42 players were cited and warranted a discussion if they had committed 'foul play' or not.

I have looked again and the breakdown is

28 players No Further Action

*10 players No match penalty notice but £250 fine

4  players penalty notice and Fined.

* where is the line drawn that says the offence is worthy of fine but not a penalty notice.

The vast majority of those cases were generated by the MRP not any of the 5 on field officials or the VR.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[RP London]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Sorry miscounted there was 42 citings.

I think it may have escaped you that I was intimating it is easy to generate 'victims' to deliberate on by the MRP and so becomes a self financing exercise.

Did you watch all the games this weekend? If so please explain how as many as 42 players were cited and warranted a discussion if they had committed 'foul play' or not.

I have looked again and the breakdown is

28 players No Further Action

*10 players No match penalty notice but £250 fine

4  players penalty notice and Fined.

* where is the line drawn that says the offence is worthy of fine but not a penalty notice.

The vast majority of those cases were generated by the MRP not any of the 5 on field officials or the VR.

 

 

Is this not actually the process working ok? The MRP see things that werent seen on the pitch, therefore players cant get away with little digs. They double check with "you may want to take a closer look at this" and the board say, nope thats fine. But maybe a picture of the way a player is playing is formed and when something does go wrong you are almost there thinking "well thats been coming". The fact the vast majority had "no further action" does not mean it was wrong to check but just that when checked it was fine. 

It seems excessive for sure but I'm not sure its really that bad. 

in terms of your "where is the line" i guess thats in the guidance documents on the RFL website. 

[daz39]

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

Is this not actually the process working ok? The MRP see things that werent seen on the pitch, therefore players cant get away with little digs. They double check with "you may want to take a closer look at this" and the board say, nope thats fine. But maybe a picture of the way a player is playing is formed and when something does go wrong you are almost there thinking "well thats been coming". The fact the vast majority had "no further action" does not mean it was wrong to check but just that when checked it was fine. 

It seems excessive for sure but I'm not sure its really that bad. 

in terms of your "where is the line" i guess thats in the guidance documents on the RFL website. 

Spot on, that's exactly what the MRP does, it watches every game back and sees stuff that the on field officials may have missed as well as the ones they saw, if any foul or illegal play happens we all surely want it punishing don't we?

Edited June 7, 2023 by daz39

[redjonn]

If 90% of reports are either no action or a minimal fine it would suggest to me that the disciplinary panel may well be thinking the match review panel are being over zealous.  At a minimum they view things differently suggesting each have a different perception of what should be on report.

Anyway I can see why given the higher level of video evidence at magic the MRP had plenty to look at but do all games have similar levels of video for scrutiny.

Plus what is the 4th official role in citing...

Anyway to me its what often happens with in business with any type regulatory reporting function or metric reporting function... they become an industry in themselves for ever over reaching.

Edited June 7, 2023 by redjonn

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, redjonn said:

If 90% of reports are either no action or a minimal fine it would suggest to me that the disciplinary panel may well be thinking the match review panel are being over zealous.  At a minimum they view things differently suggesting each have a different perception of what should be on report.

Anyway I can see why given the higher level of video evidence at magic the MRP had plenty to look at but do all games have similar levels of video for scrutiny.

Plus what is the 4th official role in citing...

Anyway to me its what often happens with in business with any type regulatory reporting function or metric reporting function... they become an industry in themselves for ever over reaching.

The MRP decide on the NFA and the lower graded fines & bans. The Disciplinary Panel only get involved in a handful of cases. They are very closely aligned
 

The weekly minutes show that the MRP are not being over zealous. They just report everything they have reviewed for transparency purposes which is surely a good thing?
 

All SL matches every week are subject to the same level of scrutiny. 

[Ragingbull]

I really do wonder about some of the posters on here sometimes. 

Any chance of a mandatory IQ as part of the account creation process?

 

[dkw]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

Is this not actually the process working ok? The MRP see things that werent seen on the pitch, therefore players cant get away with little digs. They double check with "you may want to take a closer look at this" and the board say, nope thats fine. But maybe a picture of the way a player is playing is formed and when something does go wrong you are almost there thinking "well thats been coming". The fact the vast majority had "no further action" does not mean it was wrong to check but just that when checked it was fine. 

It seems excessive for sure but I'm not sure its really that bad. 

in terms of your "where is the line" i guess thats in the guidance documents on the RFL website. 

Its literally complaining that they are doing their job, very odd.

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

 Are you sure RFL disciplinary panel Twitter account is a parody account?

It's tough to tell when the whole game is a parody of a proper sport half the time.

[Tim Streets tache]

28 minutes ago, Ragingbull said:

I really do wonder about some of the posters on here sometimes. 

Any chance of a mandatory IQ as part of the account creation process?

 

"Thanks for the confirmation" killed me