MRP Minutes

[Lowdesert]

14 hours ago, LeeF said:

Bradford had a couple from last week didn’t they?

TBH, I watched the game on catch up but did fast forward maybe 10 minutes worth.  It seems 2 got binned but might not have been for head high infringements Lee.

Thaler blew for head highs and gave lectures but no cards for the 5/6 I can remember.  Confused me as some officials are the opposite.

[LeeF]

12 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

TBH, I watched the game on catch up but did fast forward maybe 10 minutes worth.  It seems 2 got binned but might not have been for head high infringements Lee.

Thaler blew for head highs and gave lectures but no cards for the 5/6 I can remember.  Confused me as some officials are the opposite.

Bradford picked up 3 bans from the 1895 game the weekend before last is what I was referring to.

It does seem in the Championship/ 1895 and without the benefit of a VR that there is more referee judgement allowed with incidents reviewed in the week afterwards. It’s the old one view of the incident at one angle at full speed issue which is fair as all games are the same. 
 

Presumably Thaler, who is a very experienced referee, thought they were lower end incidents if they were just penalties although I haven’t seen them. Mind you he is on the same learning cave as all the others at the moment. 

[Spidey]

Just now, LeeF said:

Bradford picked up 3 bans from the 1895 game the weekend before last is what I was referring to.

It does seem in the Championship/ 1895 and without the benefit of a VR that there is more referee judgement allowed with incidents reviewed in the week afterwards. It’s the old one view of the incident at one angle at full speed issue which is fair as all games are the same. 
 

Presumably Thaler, who is a very experienced referee, thought they were lower end incidents if they were just penalties although I haven’t seen them. Mind you he is on the same learning cave as all the others at the moment. 

Most were soft high tackles in the game so I doubt there will be any suspensions as a result of them, with the two sin bins for Widnes one for an off the ball hit (if deemed high will get a ban) and the other a tip tackle which will probably get a ban

[Harry Stottle]

And the reviews from week 1 & week 2 :-

 

The independent Operational Rules Tribunal has made the following decisions following incidents in Rounds One and Two from the Betfred Super League.

Jack Hughes of Leigh Leopards successfully challenged a Grade B Dangerous Contact charge from the Round One fixture against Huddersfield Giants. He was found not guilty, meaning a punishment of a £250 fine no longer applies.

Tom Amone, also of Leigh Leopards, had been charged with Grade C head contact following an incident in the same Round One fixture, but the charge was amended to a Grade B. Amone’s challenge against the Grade B charge was rejected, meaning he will serve a one-match suspension, with a £500 fine.

Ricky Leutele, also of Leigh Leopards, successfully challenged a Grade C head contact charge, again from the Round One fixture, which would have carried a one-match suspension. His not guilty plea was upheld.

Sam Lisone of Leeds Rhinos was unsuccessful in his challenge against a Grade D head contact charge following last Thursday’s Round Two fixture at Hull KR. He must therefore serve a three-match suspension, with a £250 fine.

Liam Sutcliffe of Hull FC was unsuccessful in his challenge against the grading of a Grade D charge of contact with a match official in last Friday’s Round Two fixture at Warrington. He must therefore serve a two-match suspension, and pay a £250 fine.

[LeeF]

On 26/02/2024 at 18:40, Lowdesert said:

Interested to see if any players from the Bradford/Widnes game get punished for head highs.  

Here you go

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/MRP Minutes 29 Feb.pdf

mainly York players this week

[The Blues Ox]

Fair to say it looks like York have a discipline problem. 

[Lowdesert]

5 hours ago, LeeF said:

Here you go

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/MRP Minutes 29 Feb.pdf

mainly York players this week

This is where it’s confusing.  Thaler continually lectured Bradford and Widnes players about their actions being dangerous (about 5/6 head highs) and gave penalties.  Other Refs in SL gave penalties as well as issuing cards.  No players from the Bradford v Widnes game charged.  
Seems clear to me that the RFL officials are dealing with the same issue differently! 

[Spidey]

33 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

This is where it’s confusing.  Thaler continually lectured Bradford and Widnes players about their actions being dangerous (about 5/6 head highs) and gave penalties.  Other Refs in SL gave penalties as well as issuing cards.  No players from the Bradford v Widnes game charged.  
Seems clear to me that the RFL officials are dealing with the same issue differently! 

Lloyd Roby got a card and a charge for a tip tackle

Nobody was given a card for a high tackle, the other it was a late tackle

 

[LeeF]

4 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

This is where it’s confusing.  Thaler continually lectured Bradford and Widnes players about their actions being dangerous (about 5/6 head highs) and gave penalties.  Other Refs in SL gave penalties as well as issuing cards.  No players from the Bradford v Widnes game charged.  
Seems clear to me that the RFL officials are dealing with the same issue differently! 

Not all penalties for high tackles are card worthy. As a rule, even at a lower level, I would have always spoken to the offending player for a high tackle mainly to take the “sting” out of the issue. It was considered good game management.
 

Even in SL and with the benefit of a VR not all high tackles are carded. 

[Griff]

On 01/03/2024 at 16:33, Lowdesert said:

This is where it’s confusing.  Thaler continually lectured Bradford and Widnes players about their actions being dangerous (about 5/6 head highs) and gave penalties.  Other Refs in SL gave penalties as well as issuing cards.  No players from the Bradford v Widnes game charged.  
Seems clear to me that the RFL officials are dealing with the same issue differently! 

The three York sinbins were all for late contact. The sending off was for a head butt about a metre from Andy Sweet's nose. None of them were for head high tackles. 

All Sheffield's fault, of course, according to social media 

[Harry Stottle]

On 01/03/2024 at 16:33, Lowdesert said:

Seems clear to me that the RFL officials are dealing with the same issue differently! 

Nothing new there then.

[Griff]

8 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Nothing new there then.

Subsequent posts on the thread confirmed that Lowdesert was mistaken. But don't let that stop you continuing your tiresome vendetta against referees, Harry.

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, Griff said:

Subsequent posts on the thread confirmed that Lowdesert was mistaken. But don't let that stop you continuing your tiresome vendetta against referees, Harry.

You said officials, which I take to also include the MRP, now tell me they are consistent with their rulings.

[Griff]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

You said officials, which I take to also include the MRP, now tell me they are consistent with their rulings.

I don't intend to engage with your bile.