The Players Are Revolting

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I watched the game and if you would excuse me I would not wish to do so again, I never noticed it live but just wanted to see the incident - just like many adjudications by the panel when all the match day officials, anyone in attendance and opposing teams have not complained about anything, that we have this trial by video, is this to create fines to put more money into the coffers?

I imagine the panel sat there like a group of Dawson and Barraclough's Cissie and Ada character's "Oooh did you see that" when watching match videos.

Do you really think the game would be in a better place of we based punishing players for foul play on how much the opposing players and crowd complained about an incident?

[meast]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

If it is the Liam Sutcliffe one then video is on this page.  He was running behind the ref for 10 / 15 metres with his head clearly in the direction of the ref so not unsighted.  The referee did not change direction.  There is no way the player should have collided with him.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/watch-liam-sutcliffe-incident-hull-9125424

 

That is a weird one, he's looking straight at the ref, how can he not see him?

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, meast said:

That is a weird one, he's looking straight at the ref, how can he not see him?

Its actually a really good example of where video evidence is useful.. he has no excuse for it.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

If it is the Liam Sutcliffe one then video is on this page.  He was running behind the ref for 10 / 15 metres with his head clearly in the direction of the ref so not unsighted.  The referee did not change direction.  There is no way the player should have collided with him.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/watch-liam-sutcliffe-incident-hull-9125424

 

Thanks

If the panel consider that a deliberate act then sine die him, but somehow I don't think they do, it's either intentional or just a clumsy accident but it puts a few more bob in the coffers.

[Lowdesert]

5 minutes ago, meast said:

That is a weird one, he's looking straight at the ref, how can he not see him?

Indeed.  But that’s why I would like to see the side on view as the appeal stated the Referee was slowing down.  Just want a clearer view.

[Harry Stottle]

28 minutes ago, RP London said:

Trial by video is fine as it also works the other way and if the offence isn't actually that serious then that can be show too. If people just stop doing these things then there would be less to worry about. Not sure why the criticism is of the technology etc and not of the players TBH.

The technology is fine, it's the panel I struggle to understand.

[Lowdesert]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks

If the panel consider that a deliberate act then sine die him, but somehow I don't think they do, it's either intentional or just a clumsy accident but it puts a few more bob in the coffers.

I would imagine they used an incident from the Widnes v ?? game where Houston ran into Phil Bentham?? Houston got 2 games.

[Harry Stottle]

19 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Do you really think the game would be in a better place of we based punishing players for foul play on how much the opposing players and crowd complained about an incident?

What a daft question.

[Dave T]

22 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Do you really think the game would be in a better place of we based punishing players for foul play on how much the opposing players and crowd complained about an incident?

At least Saints would get their title back. 

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

I would imagine they used an incident from the Widnes v ?? game where Houston ran into Phil Bentham?? Houston got 2 games.

Kramer v Kramer doesn't work in RL, previous adjudications are not consistent with new ones, Harry Smith?

[Lowdesert]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Kramer v Kramer doesn't work in RL, previous adjudications are not consistent with new ones, Harry Smith?

Yeah, I already made my admission over him being available for the WCC.  Double standards from me and the RFL

Not often we get a Ref bowled over though.  Houston’s was the only one I could recall and he did get 2 matches.

[RP London]

14 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

The technology is fine, it's the panel I struggle to understand.

bar the Harry Smith one, which is a fair comment, are there really that many examples of things they shouldn't have looked at but did and banned, or those that they didnt look at that they should? When you look at loads of the incidents you can see exactly what the issues are, and if the players just stopped doing them (as pretty much all are choices) then they wouldnt need to sit there doing this. 

[Dunbar]

19 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

What a daft question.

It's the second time you have said that nobody complained so why was a decison made.  Seems a fair question to me.