This Week’s Disciplinary

[JohnM]

8 minutes ago, tim2 said:

Don't let facts get in the way of a rugby league rant!

I didn't actually read it before commenting, which I assumed was how it's supposed to be.

Me neither. I just wanted to get in before the favouritism/conspiracy/ incompetence accusations started.

[Saint Toppy]

How the hell did Dudson avoid being cited this week for deliberately kneeing Lees in the head 

Players have been getting fines & bans all year for head contacts which is fair enough. But when a player deliberately knees another in the head with the intent to injure its every bit as bad (if not worse) than a mis-timed tackle with head contact ??

I can only imagine Cullen went out to make a cuppa at this point in the game so missed it 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Saint Toppy

[super major]

On 22/06/2023 at 09:01, RP London said:

got to say the last bit is a straight red for me anyway... maybe if the game was still being played rather than half time the first one may have just been a penalty or a march 10m further (binning would also be fine by me) but calling the ref a cheat is a straight red surely. 

Fair enough from me if he did say that. Some doubt as he denies it. Could easily been cleared up as the ref was miced up so others would hear what was said but not available to tribunal?

[Saint Toppy]

What the hell is the point of giving out cautions if players just ignore them and carry on committing the same offence week after week. Romain Navarette has now received 3 cautions and 2 citations for the use of knees in the last 4 weeks;

RD16 - Caution - raised knee by ball carrier
RD17 - Caution - Use of knees
RD19 - 2 citations with no charge - raised knee by ball carrier
RD19 - Caution - raised knee by ball carrier

[RP London]

19 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

What the hell is the point of giving out cautions if players just ignore them and carry on committing the same offence week after week. Romain Navarette has now received 3 cautions and 2 citations for the use of knees in the last 4 weeks;

RD16 - Caution - raised knee by ball carrier
RD17 - Caution - Use of knees
RD19 - 2 citations with no charge - raised knee by ball carrier
RD19 - Caution - raised knee by ball carrier

This is the bit that annoys me. We can talk all we like about lowering the contact level etc and insurance premiums but its the disciplinary side that lets us down. 

If we want to clamp down on things and show we are serious then you have to enforce the rules we have at the moment. 

Insurance companies surely would look at this, the legal cases would look at this. Its not about where the high tackle is its about punishing when people break the rule, its about the HIA and concussion care to protect the players. Accidents happen but when you have this sort of proof that a player has this "ability" then at which point is it no longer an accident and that you, as a game, are culpable for letting this player continue this behaviour. 

Put it in any other business (that has to deal with H&S and Insurance) and you would get hauled over the coals for allowing someone to break the rules constantly and not deal with it. 

[Spidey]

37 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

What the hell is the point of giving out cautions if players just ignore them and carry on committing the same offence week after week. Romain Navarette has now received 3 cautions and 2 citations for the use of knees in the last 4 weeks;

RD16 - Caution - raised knee by ball carrier
RD17 - Caution - Use of knees
RD19 - 2 citations with no charge - raised knee by ball carrier
RD19 - Caution - raised knee by ball carrier

This is what the coaches wanted

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

This is what the coaches wanted

And the players. And the owners. And the journalists. And most of the fans apparently (except when it’s negatively impacts their team)

Edited July 18, 2023 by LeeF

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

This is the bit that annoys me. We can talk all we like about lowering the contact level etc and insurance premiums but its the disciplinary side that lets us down. 

If we want to clamp down on things and show we are serious then you have to enforce the rules we have at the moment. 

Insurance companies surely would look at this, the legal cases would look at this. Its not about where the high tackle is its about punishing when people break the rule, its about the HIA and concussion care to protect the players. Accidents happen but when you have this sort of proof that a player has this "ability" then at which point is it no longer an accident and that you, as a game, are culpable for letting this player continue this behaviour. 

Put it in any other business (that has to deal with H&S and Insurance) and you would get hauled over the coals for allowing someone to break the rules constantly and not deal with it. 

All valid points you make but the player in question only has 2 cautions for the same offence so a third in the next 23 months or so will automatically result in a ban as the Grade A range is 0-1. The 2 offences are deemed to be at the lower end hence the cautions. That is how the totting up procedure is supposed to work as agreed by the clubs etc.

The other Round 19 offence is deemed almost an old fashioned not guilty ie no charge. The use of knees is a separate offence.

Also if he appears before a Tribunal at any time in the next couple of seasons his “previous” will be used against him

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

This is what the coaches wanted

Is it ???

Coaches asked for consistency and for the disciplinary to be more reasonable & realistic when handing out bans. Where is any of that when a player gets pulled up 5 times in 4 weeks for doing the same thing. A caution for the 1st offence is reasonable, after that it should have progressed to a charge & a fine for the 2nd offence and then bans for all the subsequent offences.

[LeeF]

2 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Is it ???

Coaches asked for consistency and for the disciplinary to be more reasonable & realistic when handing out bans. Where is any of that when a player gets pulled up 5 times in 4 weeks for doing the same thing. A caution for the 1st offence is reasonable, after that it should have progressed to a charge & a fine for the 2nd offence and then bans for all the subsequent offences.

It isn’t the same offence. There is a totting up procedure that is clearly laid out and is being followed. I know you lost at the weekend but Saints have benefitted from the current disciplinary procedures as campaigned for by coaches, players, owners & fans 

[Saint Toppy]

40 minutes ago, LeeF said:

It isn’t the same offence. There is a totting up procedure that is clearly laid out and is being followed. I know you lost at the weekend but Saints have benefitted from the current disciplinary procedures as campaigned for by coaches, players, owners & fans 

4 of the 5 were all related to him being the ball carrier and raising his knees as he went into contact.

He'll carry on doing it until he starts picking up bans for it. Lets just hope one of those next times he doesn't cause serious injury to someone. Imagine the absolute s*&% storm if someone gets a serious head injury from his next raised knees and it ends up in court. Both player & governing body face serious consequences.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Saint Toppy

[GUBRATS]

Mr French can consider himself very lucky , I can see plenty of coaches digging out the ' footage ' of his ' past the horizontal ' tackle at the weekend for future tribunals 

[RP London]

48 minutes ago, LeeF said:

All valid points you make but the player in question only has 2 cautions for the same offence so a third in the next 23 months or so will automatically result in a ban as the Grade A range is 0-1. The 2 offences are deemed to be at the lower end hence the cautions. That is how the totting up procedure is supposed to work as agreed by the clubs etc.

The other Round 19 offence is deemed almost an old fashioned not guilty ie no charge. The use of knees is a separate offence.

Also if he appears before a Tribunal at any time in the next couple of seasons his “previous” will be used against him

I do see what your saying but his inability to keep his knees under control is obviously a major problem and no action from the RFL is not great, you can see where insurance hikes are coming from.

[Spidey]

44 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Is it ???

Coaches asked for consistency and for the disciplinary to be more reasonable & realistic when handing out bans. Where is any of that when a player gets pulled up 5 times in 4 weeks for doing the same thing. A caution for the 1st offence is reasonable, after that it should have progressed to a charge & a fine for the 2nd offence and then bans for all the subsequent offences.

Yes they asked for reduced sanctions all round

[Saint Toppy]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

Yes they asked for reduced sanctions all round

They also asked for their players to be protected more from foul play.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Saint Toppy said:

They also asked for their players to be protected more from foul play.

Like a knee to the groin

[LeeF]

46 minutes ago, RP London said:

I do see what your saying but his inability to keep his knees under control is obviously a major problem and no action from the RFL is not great, you can see where insurance hikes are coming from.

And if he is found guilty for a third time he will be banned under the totting up procedure. Clearly the 2 so far have been deemed lower end offences with a further 2 not guilty/ NFA. 
 

BTW I was fully on board with last seasons clampdown both on and off the field but clearly I was in a minority. The reasons for dropping the clampdown lie with the clubs and ultimately it’s them that have to pay the insurance. 

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

They also asked for their players to be protected more from foul play.

How do you achieve that when the deterrents aren’t there?

[Saint Toppy]

40 minutes ago, Spidey said:

How do you achieve that when the deterrents aren’t there?

They are there its how the disciplinary choose to use them that appears to be the biggest issue with this latest Navarette charge being a prime example. The guy has been cited / charged 5 times in the last 4 rounds for use of his knees in the tackle. Not imposing a sanction on him for consistently breaking the same rule week after week is why there is no real deterrent.

[Spidey]

19 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

They are there its how the disciplinary choose to use them that appears to be the biggest issue with this latest Navarette charge being a prime example. The guy has been cited / charged 5 times in the last 4 rounds for use of his knees in the tackle. Not imposing a sanction on him for consistently breaking the same rule week after week is why there is no real deterrent.

They’re only following what the coaches asked them to do. Look at them first 

[LeeF]

30 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

They are there its how the disciplinary choose to use them that appears to be the biggest issue with this latest Navarette charge being a prime example. The guy has been cited / charged 5 times in the last 4 rounds for use of his knees in the tackle. Not imposing a sanction on him for consistently breaking the same rule week after week is why there is no real deterrent.

You do understand the difference between a citing and a charge don’t you? 

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

You do understand the difference between a citing and a charge don’t you? 

Perfectly. What I don't understand is why your being such an apologist for a player who is consistently breaking the rules and his actions have the potential to cause a serious injury to other players ?

I take it you won't bat an eyelid or bother even commenting on sanctions if Navarette ever gets  knocked out or suffers a serious head injury through foul play ?

[Spidey]

14 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Perfectly. What I don't understand is why your being such an apologist for a player who is consistently breaking the rules and his actions have the potential to cause a serious injury to other players ?

I take it you won't bat an eyelid or bother even commenting on sanctions if Navarette ever gets  knocked out or suffers a serious head injury through foul play ?

You could easily swap in Morgan Knowles to that post to be fair

[LeeF]

51 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Perfectly. What I don't understand is why your being such an apologist for a player who is consistently breaking the rules and his actions have the potential to cause a serious injury to other players ?

I take it you won't bat an eyelid or bother even commenting on sanctions if Navarette ever gets  knocked out or suffers a serious head injury through foul play ?

Clearly you don’t understand the difference. Consistently breaking the rules? There are only 3 instances two of which are the same the third being different. The other 2 were NFA/ Not Guilty. For clarity a citing is not a charge.

As for being an apologist please show me where I have excused or apologised for his actions and your last paragraph is clutching straws at best or are you wanting Navarrete to be a victim of dangerous foul play?
 

Mind you I do recall you apologising and arguing black was white for Knowles, Lees, Sironen and others this season alone so maybe be careful throwing stones in glass houses.