More disciplinary controversy

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Now before anyone says that cannot be done, who on these pages believes that Wigan are not taking advantage of the present rulings?

Before answering that, I would need to know if bans for players all season have automatically included first team and reserve team games without any intervention from the club involved.

[FearTheVee]

Isn't this really easy?  If you get banned in the first team for say 2 games, you can't play at any level until two first team games have elapsed (friendlies excluded).

If you get banned at reserve level for two games, you can't play at any level until two reserve games have elapsed (friendlies excluded).

The most important thing is maintaining the integrity of the disciplinary at the top flight and the above would do that.

Edited September 26, 2023 by FearTheVee

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, WN83 said:

Enlighten me on what is incorrect in what I've said? 

I know what the present rules are, and that is why I said let common sense prevail, there is no way on this earth that the banned 'first' team players would have taken part in a reserve game one week before a semi and risk injury, is there?

Let's be totally stupid here and take this further, if the Fist Team semi was on a Sunday and the Reserve Final on a Saturday, under the present system Wigan could utilise the Reserve final as wiping out the one match ban that is why there is no common sense applied to the situation.

I am using the name Wigan here because it is the discussion point, it is the ruling under discussion. Sorry I should have made that clear.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Isn't this really easy?  If you get banned in the first team for say 2 games, you can't play at any level until two first team games have elapsed (friendlies excluded).

If you get banned at reserve level for two games, you can't play at any level until two reserve games have elapsed (friendlies excluded).

The most important thing is maintaining the integrity of the disciplinary at the top flight and the above would do that.

Yes, I was thinking about a time stamped ban and this was similar to what I came up with. 

If your ban is in first grade, you are banned until the next first grade game has passed. 

But, however they do it, it really isn't that difficult to come up with a solution that factors this in. 

And I do recall a fair bit of criticism around this with John Bateman and the England squad last year. I tried to find the thread, was interested in what my view was a year ago! Unfortunately the search function is terrible. 

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, Dave T said:

Yes, I was thinking about a time stamped ban and this was similar to what I came up with. 

If your ban is in first grade, you are banned until the next first grade game has passed. 

But, however they do it, it really isn't that difficult to come up with a solution that factors this in. 

And I do recall a fair bit of criticism around this with John Bateman and the England squad last year. I tried to find the thread, was interested in what my view was a year ago! Unfortunately the search function is terrible. 

It was as wrong with Bateman as this is now.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

It was as wrong with Bateman as this is now.

I agree and my memory was that people were as peed off with it as with this. As I say, I do reserve the right to change my mind if the thread is found and I defended it

[phiggins]

20 minutes ago, WN83 said:

But if you finish top 2, you don't get a game the following week and therefore are at a disadvantage when it comes to bans, over clubs finishing 3rd to 6th. 

If we look at Saints this weekend, they play a team in Warrington, who are in bad form, missing their best forward and who have a poor record against Saints, so Saints should have a reasonably comfortable day. Say James Roby has picked up a two match ban last week and Sam Tomkins had also picked up a two match ban. Those two legends of the sport are retiring at the end of the season. Catalans finished top 2 but Sam Tomkins 2 game ban finishes his season, whereas the same ban for Roby would allow him to play in the final (if Saints made it), simply because his club finished lower in the table. That just doesn't feel right to me because all the advantages should be stacked for the teams finishing in those top spots. 

I get your point, but I just don't think finishing top two should give a free pass for a ban. There's already the advantage of only having to win one home game to get to a grand final. If top 2 was guaranteed ahead of the last round, is it right that teams know that they're immune from a 1 match ban. So there are not consequences of anything they do that is less than a grade C?

[WN83]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I know what the present rules are, and that is why I said let common sense prevail, there is no way on this earth that the banned 'first' team players would have taken part in a reserve game one week before a semi and risk injury, is there?

Let's be totally stupid here and take this further, if the Fist Team semi was on a Sunday and the Reserve Final on a Saturday, under the present system Wigan could utilise the Reserve final as wiping out the one match ban that is why there is no common sense applied to the situation.

I am using the name Wigan here because it is the discussion point, it is the ruling under discussion. Sorry I should have made that clear.

They cannot use a reserve fixture on the same weekend as a first team one and that is why we very rarely see this. We see it on Cup weekends, when teams have been knocked out and when we have mid season internationals. 

And I know there is no way French or Ellis would play in the reserves fixture by the way (Hill might've done) but Wigan have not applied to use this loophole, it just exists and has done for donkeys years but we rarely see word of it because of the reasons noted in the first paragraph (and because there aren't lots of reserve teams). 

I'm agreeing it's a joke and needs sorting out as well but in this case Wigan need totally separating from the issue because it's not some sort of loophole they've found, it just simply exists and has done for years. 

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, Dave T said:

I agree and my memory was that people were as peed off with it as with this. As I say, I do reserve the right to change my mind if the thread is found and I defended it

Au Contraire David !

[WN83]

5 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I get your point, but I just don't think finishing top two should give a free pass for a ban. There's already the advantage of only having to win one home game to get to a grand final. If top 2 was guaranteed ahead of the last round, is it right that teams know that they're immune from a 1 match ban. So there are not consequences of anything they do that is less than a grade C?

It is a tricky one no doubt about it but I just think that scenario I mention around Roby/Tomkins and how play off bans could work highlight an issue with the set up, that they could potentially work around with weeks bans, rather than games. 

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, WN83 said:

They cannot use a reserve fixture on the same weekend as a first team one and that is why we very rarely see this. We see it on Cup weekends, when teams have been knocked out and when we have mid season internationals. 

And I know there is no way French or Ellis would play in the reserves fixture by the way (Hill might've done) but Wigan have not applied to use this loophole, it just exists and has done for donkeys years but we rarely see word of it because of the reasons noted in the first paragraph (and because there aren't lots of reserve teams). 

I'm agreeing it's a joke and needs sorting out as well but in this case Wigan need totally separating from the issue because it's not some sort of loophole they've found, it just simply exists and has done for years. 

Thanks for the correction.

And as I said in my final paragraph this is about the system not Wigan, the point is the 'Loophole" exists and it is there to be exploited by whoever.

Surely and hopefully a 'common sense' solution will be devised, of that I think we are both in agreement.

[WN83]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks for the correction.

And as I said in my final paragraph this is about the system not Wigan, the point is the 'Loophole" exists and it is there to be exploited by whoever.

Surely and hopefully a 'common sense' solution will be devised, of that I think we are both in agreement.

I really hope so. I can't be a hypocrite, I remember Liam Watts benefitting from this before a game against Wigan at Cas and I was fuming. It is an utter shambles and should not be allowed to happen and hopefully such a high profile example like this will now finally get the RFL's backsides in gear. 

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, WN83 said:

that they could potentially work around with weeks bans, rather than games. 

As long as it takes in a minimum number of games also and for which team or teams, given this week's adjudication a one week ban for French would still allow him to play in the semi.

[WN83]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

As long as it takes in a minimum number of games also and for which team or teams, given this week's adjudication a one week ban for French would still allow him to play in the semi.

That's my point though, why should French miss a semi because his team finished 1st but a player with a 1 game ban from the 6th placed team, would be able to play in a semi if his club got there? It's a punishment for finishing top 2. 

Totally different subject to this ridiculous reserves ruling though and one that would have varying opinions on it. The reserves thing needs binning, whereas I doubt they would ever look at that scenario I mention. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, WN83 said:

I really hope so. I can't be a hypocrite, I remember Liam Watts benefitting from this before a game against Wigan at Cas and I was fuming. It is an utter shambles and should not be allowed to happen and hopefully such a high profile example like this will now finally get the RFL's backsides in gear. 

Aye, but supposing Welsby gets sent off in any of the games Saints are yet to play this season (only one hopefully, C'mon Wire) and an international programme is looming, the RFL could act with caution, because we have a regular end of season international programme scheduled.

Used Welsby only because he is the present lovechild.

[Click]

2 minutes ago, WN83 said:

That's my point though, why should French miss a semi because his team finished 1st but a player with a 1 game ban from the 6th placed team, would be able to play in a semi if his club got there? It's a punishment for finishing top 2. 

Totally different subject to this ridiculous reserves ruling though and one that would have varying opinions on it. The reserves thing needs binning, whereas I doubt they would ever look at that scenario I mention. 

If you get banned for a match then you are banned. Why should they not be punished for what they've done, just because they have a week off? 

Easy thing to do for those winning week 1 players - don't do something that would result in a ban, and no issues.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, WN83 said:

That's my point though, why should French miss a semi because his team finished 1st but a player with a 1 game ban from the 6th placed team, would be able to play in a semi if his club got there? It's a punishment for finishing top 2. 

Totally different subject to this ridiculous reserves ruling though and one that would have varying opinions on it. The reserves thing needs binning, whereas I doubt they would ever look at that scenario I mention. 

Well Leigh have finished 5th, and lose the services of Amone this week,  is the semi any more important in respect of moving forward in the competition? Amone is going to serve his ban for his miscreant in the same game as the Wigan player's, it should not matter what the finishing position is the club gets the benefits of finishing 1 or 2 with a home tie and a week off, and in this case no penalty whatsoever for a match ban.

[WN83]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well Leigh have finished 5th, and lose the services of Amone this week,  is the semi any more important in respect of moving forward in the competition? Amone is going to serve his ban for his miscreant in the same game as the Wigan player's, it should not matter what the finishing position is the club gets the benefits of finishing 1 or 2 with a home tie and a week off, and in this case no penalty whatsoever for a match ban.

I can see it both ways but the extreme example would be that the 6th placed side makes the semis and their best player comes back from a one game ban, to play in it but the 1st placed side is missing their best player, simply on the basis they finished top and didn't get an extra game to use it in. It's just a strange anomaly of the play off system I suppose and I very much doubt it will be looked at but it feels a bit wrong. 

 

[ELBOWSEYE]

57 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Isn't this really easy?  If you get banned in the first team for say 2 games, you can't play at any level until two first team games have elapsed (friendlies excluded).

If you get banned at reserve level for two games, you can't play at any level until two reserve games have elapsed (friendlies excluded).

The most important thing is maintaining the integrity of the disciplinary at the top flight and the above would do that.

That's too much common sense for the RFL or this forum.

[Exiled Wiganer]

50 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It was as wrong with Bateman as this is now.

Could you perhaps remind us of the number of posts and their content at the time? It would be strange indeed for you to have been unconcerned then but apoplectic now.

[Exiled Wiganer]

So, in short, a rule has been correctly applied, in a way consistent with precedent. 

[phiggins]

23 minutes ago, WN83 said:

It is a tricky one no doubt about it but I just think that scenario I mention around Roby/Tomkins and how play off bans could work highlight an issue with the set up, that they could potentially work around with weeks bans, rather than games. 

Definitely a tricky one, not helped by how the current MRP setup works. Have to say, I didn't leave that game on Friday thinking that Wigan would have 3 players banned.

I think I'd prefer to see a points based system, e.g. grade A = 1 point, B = 2 points and so on, then points are put on a player's record for every charge, where it's something that's stronger than a penalty, but not necessarily a red card offence. Then at certain intervals, you get a fine, 1 match ban, 2 match ban etc... but the points are wiped at different stages of the season. Similar to football and 5 bookings is a one match ban and 10 bookings is a 2 match ban. But red card offences are a ban, unless overturned.

Would mean you'd have to do something drastic to miss a semi final in this situation, or had a shocker for the last few weeks. But you're not missing a game just for a grade B. 

Would need a lot more thought put into the details, but feels like a better approach in general than a player losing £250 every time he misjudges a tackle.

[FearTheVee]

2 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

So, in short, a rule has been correctly applied, in a way consistent with precedent. 

Nobody is disputing that?

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Could you perhaps remind us of the number of posts and their content at the time? It would be strange indeed for you to have been unconcerned then but apoplectic now.

Ah it's an ex Wigan player who's name appears and the journeyman's ears pop up, you really are sad.

I was very concerned at the time, look back for which way I swayed.

[WN83]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

Definitely a tricky one, not helped by how the current MRP setup works. Have to say, I didn't leave that game on Friday thinking that Wigan would have 3 players banned.

I think I'd prefer to see a points based system, e.g. grade A = 1 point, B = 2 points and so on, then points are put on a player's record for every charge, where it's something that's stronger than a penalty, but not necessarily a red card offence. Then at certain intervals, you get a fine, 1 match ban, 2 match ban etc... but the points are wiped at different stages of the season. Similar to football and 5 bookings is a one match ban and 10 bookings is a 2 match ban. But red card offences are a ban, unless overturned.

Would mean you'd have to do something drastic to miss a semi final in this situation, or had a shocker for the last few weeks. But you're not missing a game just for a grade B. 

Would need a lot more thought put into the details, but feels like a better approach in general than a player losing £250 every time he misjudges a tackle.

I think talk of this reserves farce and also my point about teams being almost punished for finishing top does take away from the main point and that is that the whole system is a total and utter mess and desperately needs ripping up and started again in the off season. Things such as this example around the reserves needs to fall under that review. The forensic examination of every game (well I say every game, I'm sure there is a bigger focus on the TV games), looking at ways in which players can be banned needs to stop. As you say, the naked eye didn't watch that game and think 4 players would be banned on the back of it. It was a tough game but not a dirty game by any stretch.