More disciplinary controversy

[Click]

13 minutes ago, WN83 said:

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. 

 

Yes, you are right. It would be totally wrong to make a player serve a 1 match ban because they're due to play in a big game next.

Of course your situation already assumes that the lower placed teams will then get to their semi final, even with their best player missing. Which should be a lot tougher for the lower team.

[Jinking Jimmy]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Evidence please!

This is from the St Helens website 22/09/22

LMS has been charged with Grade B contact on a match official and handed a one match suspension, whilst Knowles is charged with a Grade A dangerous contact and has also been banned for one game.
Tommy Makinson has been cautioned after also making contact with the match official.

From Rugby-League.com August 1st 2022

Following the latest round of Betfred Super League fixtures, the following sanctions have been issued.

• Danny Houghton (Hull FC) - Grade A Dangerous Contact - 0 Match Penalty Notice
• Chris McQueen (Huddersfield Giants) - Grade A Dangerous Contact - 0 Match Penalty Notice
• Olly Russell (Huddersfield Giants) - Grade B Tripping - 1 Match Penalty Notice
• Matt Prior (Leeds Rhinos) - Grade B High Tackle - 2 Match Penalty Notice
• Tiaki Chan (Catalans Dragons)- Grade A Dangerous Contact - 0 Match Penalty Notice
• Louie McCarthy-Scarsbrook (St Helens) - Grade A Contact with Referee - 0 Match Penalty Notice
• Elijah Taylor (Salford Red Devils) - Grade A Dangerous Contact - 0 Match Penalty Notice

 

•  
•  

 

 

 

.

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, WN83 said:

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. 

They are all going to be televised next year by whatever platform aren't they?

I think there is some mileage in what @phiggins suggests, all it will take is a type of stats man on the MRP who instead of monitoring tackles etc ticks off players misdemeanors, to be alloted as he describes.

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

This is from the St Helens website 22/09/22

LMS has been charged with Grade B contact on a match official and handed a one match suspension, whilst Knowles is charged with a Grade A dangerous contact and has also been banned for one game.
Tommy Makinson has been cautioned after also making contact with the match official.

From Rugby-League.com August 1st 2022

Following the latest round of Betfred Super League fixtures, the following sanctions have been issued.

• Danny Houghton (Hull FC) - Grade A Dangerous Contact - 0 Match Penalty Notice
• Chris McQueen (Huddersfield Giants) - Grade A Dangerous Contact - 0 Match Penalty Notice
• Olly Russell (Huddersfield Giants) - Grade B Tripping - 1 Match Penalty Notice
• Matt Prior (Leeds Rhinos) - Grade B High Tackle - 2 Match Penalty Notice
• Tiaki Chan (Catalans Dragons)- Grade A Dangerous Contact - 0 Match Penalty Notice
• Louie McCarthy-Scarsbrook (St Helens) - Grade A Contact with Referee - 0 Match Penalty Notice
• Elijah Taylor (Salford Red Devils) - Grade A Dangerous Contact - 0 Match Penalty Notice

 

•  
•  

 

 

 

.

Well done, but the question was when did the ruling change that instead of suffering match penalties for contact with the referee was it let off.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

13 hours ago, north yorks trinity said:

Congratulations on a fine victory against Leigh and well done to Saints in the other qualifying semi (it'll be Wire's year next season).

One game at a time or it'll come back to bite you!!

Self-deprecating humour from a lifetime of well-earned hard skin rather than hubris, believe me. If you can't be irreverent when you've had a good season, when can you be?

[WN83]

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

They are all going to be televised next year by whatever platform aren't they?

I think there is some mileage in what @phiggins suggests, all it will take is a type of stats man on the MRP who instead of monitoring tackles etc ticks off players misdemeanors, to be alloted as he describes.

It feels like they try to apply too many formulas to the incidents already, with gradings and scales of seriousness and that can just take away from simply judging an incident on it's own merits. I don't like the fact they sit down and go through every game looking for things to punish, rather than just looking at incidents the referee's have put on report. Players being cited for serious foul play is fine but the forensic investigations in to each and every tackle needs ending. That would solve many issues straight away and put an onus on refs to pick up incidents during the games. If we then sat a points system in the background of those changes, that would be fine. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, 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

I found the thread where Bateman was banned - as expected, people disagreed with it, pretty much without exception. However - it was rather overshadowed as it was part of a 29 page epic thread where Morgan Knowles and Saints kept appealing until they beat the Disciplinary panel into submission

And my view was that the RFL's request to use the Knights game should have been rejected. Phew.

[Jinking Jimmy]

33 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well done, but the question was when did the ruling change that instead of suffering match penalties for contact with the referee was it let off.

As I said, at least from last season. Ask the RFL.

[Just Browny]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I found the thread where Bateman was banned - as expected, people disagreed with it, pretty much without exception. However - it was rather overshadowed as it was part of a 29 page epic thread where Morgan Knowles and Saints kept appealing until they beat the Disciplinary panel into submission

And my view was that the RFL's request to use the Knights game should have been rejected. Phew.

Yes, it's a standard move to say 'X* team did this before and nobody complained then' even if all evidence shows people did raise it as an issue.

*Usually Saints or Wigan - whichever one is not doing something dodgy at the time

[Dunbar]

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I found the thread where Bateman was banned - as expected, people disagreed with it, pretty much without exception. However - it was rather overshadowed as it was part of a 29 page epic thread where Morgan Knowles and Saints kept appealing until they beat the Disciplinary panel into submission

I can't believe we didn't see it at the time but there was clearly a conspiracy between the RFL, Wigan and St Helens to use the Knowles disciplinary process to suppress the outcry over using the Knights to serve the Bateman ban.

Just goes to show, you have to do your own research to catch them out.

[Harry Stottle]

41 minutes ago, WN83 said:

It feels like they try to apply too many formulas to the incidents already, with gradings and scales of seriousness and that can just take away from simply judging an incident on it's own merits. I don't like the fact they sit down and go through every game looking for things to punish, rather than just looking at incidents the referee's have put on report. Players being cited for serious foul play is fine but the forensic investigations in to each and every tackle needs ending. That would solve many issues straight away and put an onus on refs to pick up incidents during the games. If we then sat a points system in the background of those changes, that would be fine. 

I agree with all that WN.

But the precedent has now been set, can they go back, will they go back now they are seemingly being paid for longer hours?

[north yorks trinity]

5 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Wire are still in the competition, certainly not favourites but still in it .

Sorry, it was an attempt at humour aimed at Hull Kingston Bronco, who implied that HKR would be playing Wigan in the semi. For that to happen (if it works like previously where the lowest team always plays the highest team), it would require HKR and Saints to both win their respective semis.

FWIW I hope Wire do beat Saints, just to shake it up a bit,

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, WN83 said:

There shouldn't be a downside to finishing in the top 2 and that also needs looking at

Seriously ? , even if you've achieved that top 2 finish by your players committing foul play ? , brilliant 

[GUBRATS]

3 hours 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. 

 That just doesn't feel right to me because all the advantages should be stacked for the teams finishing in those top spots. 

Even if you've achieved it by committing foul play ? , only a Wiganer would come out with that 

[WN83]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Even if you've achieved it by committing foul play ? , only a Wiganer would come out with that 

Might blow your mind this pal, but that wasn't the reason we finished top, even if you'd like to think it was.

 

 

[WN83]

41 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I agree with all that WN.

But the precedent has now been set, can they go back, will they go back now they are seemingly being paid for longer hours?

The clubs, players, coaches, fans and whoever else need to push for change. If that means cutting roles, so be it because the whole system is broken. 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours 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. 

Don't touch the ref , simples 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, WN83 said:

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. 

 

Don't get banned , simple as 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

24 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Sorry, it was an attempt at humour aimed at Hull Kingston Bronco, who implied that HKR would be playing Wigan in the semi. For that to happen (if it works like previously where the lowest team always plays the highest team), it would require HKR and Saints to both win their respective semis.

FWIW I hope Wire do beat Saints, just to shake it up a bit,

FWIW I too hope Wire beat Saints, as I’d rather not play Wigan in their current form (especially with them remembering the Challenge Cup semi), and also fancy a few days in the South of France ahead of our victory against Catalans so I can eke out what remains of the weather!  

[ELBOWSEYE]

34 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Sorry, it was an attempt at humour aimed at Hull Kingston Bronco, who implied that HKR would be playing Wigan in the semi. For that to happen (if it works like previously where the lowest team always plays the highest team), it would require HKR and Saints to both win their respective semis.

FWIW I hope Wire do beat Saints, just to shake it up a bit,

No worries 

[GUBRATS]

16 minutes ago, WN83 said:

Might blow your mind this pal, but that wasn't the reason we finished top, even if you'd like to think it was.

 

 

Yes , we all know how that came about don't we ? 

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, WN83 said:

It feels like they try to apply too many formulas to the incidents already, with gradings and scales of seriousness and that can just take away from simply judging an incident on it's own merits. I don't like the fact they sit down and go through every game looking for things to punish, rather than just looking at incidents the referee's have put on report. Players being cited for serious foul play is fine but the forensic investigations in to each and every tackle needs ending. That would solve many issues straight away and put an onus on refs to pick up incidents during the games. If we then sat a points system in the background of those changes, that would be fine. 

The current process was devised by the clubs with Hudgell and Carter heavily involved. This is what they wanted - no red cards and the MRP reviewing every game/ incident 

[idrewthehaggis]

Whatever way you look, the system is broken.

Choice for RFL is to retain an unsatisfactory, rigged structure, whether it be inconsistent application of the Laws, video refs/TMO or the disciplinary pane.

Or change and reform.

[WN83]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

Yes , we all know how that came about don't we ? 

Winning as many games as Catalans and Saints but with a better defence and attack. I'm presuming that's what you mean anyway. 

Edited September 26, 2023 by WN83

[WN83]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

The current process was devised by the clubs with Hudgell and Carter heavily involved. This is what they wanted - no red cards and the MRP reviewing every game/ incident 

They'll need to own up to being wrong then or we just continue with this current madness.