Liam Moore

[dkw]

That's not the gotcha you think it is, there's a lot if maaybes, depending, circumstances in that sentence. I'm absolutely certain if you punch someone claiming you thought they were gonna hit you will see you prosecuted every single time.

All this is a complete red herring anyway, you simply can't equate actions on a pitch to those on the street.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Ive attached a photo for you but if you feel like having a read on the Crown Prosecution website it goes in to it in more depth on there. In certain circumstances you are well within your rights to punch someone before they attack you.

The discussion is only if you can punch someone in the street before they attack you. The answer is that under certain circumstances you can.

Thanks for literally agreeing with every word I said.

Either way, and to keep it to the rugby, there was no eye gouging, no movement to eye gouging, nothing that could be mistaken for eye gouging so therefore no double knee to the head required to prevent eye gouging.

[Wolford6]

The referee (Cameron Worsley, I think) for today's game between Keighley and the Bulls was given a game that had potential to boil over. Quietly confident, he was excellent and controlled it well. I don't think either team will have any complaints.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

That's actually not remotely true.

Yes it is

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

3 hours ago, LeeF said:

The eyes were never grabbed. There was zero grabbing action. It was the forearm rubbing the face. 

It's not clear either way...however if someone is grabbing your face then an eye injury is being risked either way

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Ive attached a photo for you but if you feel like having a read on the Crown Prosecution website it goes in to it in more depth on there. In certain circumstances you are well within your rights to punch someone before they attack you.

The discussion is only if you can punch someone in the street before they attack you. The answer is that under certain circumstances you can.

Precisely this 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 hours ago, dkw said:

That's not the gotcha you think it is, there's a lot if maaybes, depending, circumstances in that sentence. I'm absolutely certain if you punch someone claiming you thought they were gonna hit you will see you prosecuted every single time.

All this is a complete red herring anyway, you simply can't equate actions on a pitch to those on the street.

I know for a FACT you can preemptively strike if you feel threatened 

Also...the sort of ****wipes who go around threatening are the ones who often/always already have a record....the police very quickly deduce what is what 

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, dkw said:

That's not the gotcha you think it is, there's a lot if maaybes, depending, circumstances in that sentence. I'm absolutely certain if you punch someone claiming you thought they were gonna hit you will see you prosecuted every single time.

You are wrong. 

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Thanks for literally agreeing with every word I said.

Either way, and to keep it to the rugby, there was no eye gouging, no movement to eye gouging, nothing that could be mistaken for eye gouging so therefore no double knee to the head required to prevent eye gouging.

You have me totally confused, so now you are saying that under certain circumstances you could punch somebody without them attacking you first? Basically what BB and I said in the first place which dkw and yourself seemed to disagree with although you now seem to be sat on the fence.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

You have me totally confused, so now you are saying that under certain circumstances you could punch somebody without them attacking you first? Basically what BB and I said in the first place which dkw and yourself seemed to disagree with although you now seem to be sat on the fence.

You can't walk around believing you can just attack someone because you feel threatened. This isn't Florida. The burden of proof is on you to prove you were in identifiable, provable danger and you responded with only the force necessary to end that threat.

If you can't prove that, beyond reasonable doubt, you're off to the slammer.

As, indeed, a lot of people who like to think they were acting in self defence have already gone.

[gingerjon]

15 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

FACT

How can you tell, straight away, someone is wrong.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

You can't walk around believing you can just attack someone because you feel threatened. This isn't Florida. The burden of proof is on you to prove you were in identifiable, provable danger and you responded with only the force necessary to end that threat.

If you can't prove that, beyond reasonable doubt, you're off to the slammer.

As, indeed, a lot of people who like to think they were acting in self defence have already gone.

You might want to read what Blue Ox posted from the CPS

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

How can you tell, straight away, someone is wrong.

All circumstances are individual and subject to scrutiny of course 

However...if someone is displaying threat to you then you can preemptively strike 

Related to the Sau incident.....it is even easier to reduce 

Sau's face was being grabbed/potentially eye gouged ....he had every reason to suspect the attack might end up blinding him .....in law he would abso- ****ing- lutely be entitled to do what he did 

I'm speechless that some people don't get it 

Edited February 18 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[meast]

Potentially eye gouged?

Either they're being gouged or they're not.

I don't think there you can claim Sao's actions were justified because of potentially being eye gouged.

You're making this up now.

[Sports Prophet]

7 hours ago, meast said:

Potentially eye gouged?

Either they're being gouged or they're not.

I don't think there you can claim Sao's actions were justified because of potentially being eye gouged.

You're making this up now.

His head was being attacked. I reckon he has a right to retaliate within reason to stop that attack. I think he retaliated well within reason. Two of the softest knees you are likely to see.

[gingerjon]

41 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

His head was being attacked. I reckon he has a right to retaliate within reason to stop that attack. I think he retaliated well within reason. Two of the softest knees you are likely to see.

You should have ended that with FACT.

[bobbruce]

9 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

All circumstances are individual and subject to scrutiny of course 

However...if someone is displaying threat to you then you can preemptively strike 

Related to the Sau incident.....it is even easier to reduce 

Sau's face was being grabbed/potentially eye gouged ....he had every reason to suspect the attack might end up blinding him .....in law he would abso- ****ing- lutely be entitled to do what he did 

I'm speechless that some people don't get it 

If Sau was being gouged and thought it might end with him losing his sight. Wouldn’t the first thing you’d do be to let go of the ball in order to free your hand up to defend yourself.  

[LeeF]

13 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

It's not clear either way...however if someone is grabbing your face then an eye injury is being risked either way

It’s 100% clear. There was no grabbing going on. You are continuing to make stuff up to justify your original OTT and incorrect comment. 

[The Blues Ox]

13 hours ago, gingerjon said:

You can't walk around believing you can just attack someone because you feel threatened. This isn't Florida. The burden of proof is on you to prove you were in identifiable, provable danger and you responded with only the force necessary to end that threat.

If you can't prove that, beyond reasonable doubt, you're off to the slammer.

As, indeed, a lot of people who like to think they were acting in self defence have already gone.

Now you are just spinning things.  The original post was something along the lines of if you are allowed to punch someone in self defense before they attack you. The answer is yes you can. Of course there are certain circumstances and nobody is just suggesting go around punching someone for the sake of it that would be stupid. Clearly if you were to be the one who struck first then you couldn't just prolong an attack, again that is no longer self defense and you would be prosecuted, but once again nobody in this thread has suggested that.

Back to the original comments and I still believe there needs to be an element of common sense, and the ref's were given this leeway in directives that they got before the start of the season that allowed for mitigating circumstances and in this situation in the Hull derby I believe a common sense approach should have been applied.

Parcell's actions are a clear red card under the new interpretations, personally I don't believe there was an intention to gouge although it didn't look great, there is however clear and forceful direct contact with the head of the Hull player and the twisting action could have been very dangerous. I think that could be judged enough to get a reaction from the attacker and that is where common sense should be applied in my opinion. There won't be many players who wouldn't have reacted in that situation although it would have happened in many ways. Ideally we don't want retaliation in the game but the order of the cards certainly sends out the wrong message and the RFL's decision surrounding that incident could set the tone for the season if they are not careful. 

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Now you are just spinning things.  The original post was something along the lines of if you are allowed to punch someone in self defense before they attack you. The answer is yes you can. Of course there are certain circumstances and nobody is just suggesting go around punching someone for the sake of it that would be stupid. Clearly if you were to be the one who struck first then you couldn't just prolong an attack, again that is no longer self defense and you would be prosecuted, but once again nobody in this thread has suggested that.

Back to the original comments and I still believe there needs to be an element of common sense, and the ref's were given this leeway in directives that they got before the start of the season that allowed for mitigating circumstances and in this situation in the Hull derby I believe a common sense approach should have been applied.

Parcell's actions are a clear red card under the new interpretations, personally I don't believe there was an intention to gouge although it didn't look great, there is however clear and forceful direct contact with the head of the Hull player and the twisting action could have been very dangerous. I think that could be judged enough to get a reaction from the attacker and that is where common sense should be applied in my opinion. There won't be many players who wouldn't have reacted in that situation although it would have happened in many ways. Ideally we don't want retaliation in the game but the order of the cards certainly sends out the wrong message and the RFL's decision surrounding that incident could set the tone for the season if they are not careful. 

Retaliation has always carried the risk of being punished more than the original offence. Nothing has changed there.

We'll agree to disagree on the leeway given you to punch someone in the street.

[Damien]

21 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Retaliation has always carried the risk of being punished more than the original offence. Nothing has changed there.

We'll agree to disagree on the leeway given you to punch someone in the street.

Yep, we have always seen penalties overturned for retaliation and players punished.

[Barley Mow]

29 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Retaliation has always carried the risk of being punished more than the original offence. Nothing has changed there.

We'll agree to disagree on the leeway given you to punch someone in the street.

I think a distinction needs to be made between a player defending themselves and one retaliating.

Having watched the footage from the Hull derby I'm still not sure which it was in this case: But if a player is defending themselves from actual or perceived risk of injury (getting the bloke off them) they should definitely be given more leeway than if they are retaliating against an opponent (taking vengeance).

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I think a distinction needs to be made between a player defending themselves and one retaliating.

Having watched the footage from the Hull derby I'm still not sure which it was in this case: But if a player is defending themselves from actual or perceived risk of injury (getting the bloke off them) they should definitely be given more leeway than if they are retaliating against an opponent (taking vengeance).

That's fair. It's one of the reasons why I said I thought the red was tough but understandable as opposed to either completely reasonable or a wild miscarriage of justice.

I think - to put it in crude terms - you could probably defend one knee as an instinctive 'get off me' move, but not the second. And the second makes you doubt the first.

[up the robins]

It's a sad part of the game which happens multiple times in every game where players have hands in players faces or rubbing the players face into the mud during the tackle.

Parcel's actions was more brought to light because it was added after tackle completion, for me there was no  attempt of eye gouging just silly stupidity of trying to and successfully getting a player to loose there cool and blow there top, resulting in sending off. 

I think parcel will receive a one match man and no complaints from me it was foolish and not needed.

Sau would I believe got away with the first knee in trying to defend himself in the incident but the second one looked as if it was aimed for with more intent which is directly to the head and will receive a ban, I do feel slightly sorry for sau as I would probably reacted in a similar way but that doesn't make it right.

[SUPERSTUD]

Didn’t wish to start a new thread. Regarding jewellery being worn during matches by the various participants. I couldn’t help but notice that Mr Moore was wearing a wedding ring whilst reffing the Cas v Hudds game on Friday night. It was possibly an oversight on his part but it has the potential to cause injury to another whilst hand signalling etc.