Jump to content

Disciplinary at it again.


Recommended Posts

Cam Smith gets a one match ban for a innocuous nudge on Cas player, Sangare a one match ban for an accidental head clash but Dupree gets away with elbow into matty Lees face. Unbelievable.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


With the Dupree incident maybe they felt bad because Matty Lees should have been sent off in the tackle before that which was totally missed by onfield and video refs. As I put in the Saints V Wigan thread that was a huge turning point of the game. Instead of Saints been down to 12 men for the rest of the game, Wigan were reduced to 12 the very next tackle and also lost Thompson because of the Lees tackle. A real double whammy and worrying that not only was the incident missed it took some minutes before the people watching the videos realised that Thompson was not all there.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Loiner said:

Cam Smith gets a one match ban for a innocuous nudge on Cas player, Sangare a one match ban for an accidental head clash but Dupree gets away with elbow into matty Lees face. Unbelievable.

Not much else can be said re Dupree getting away with that one, raising the elbow in that fashion is full of intent and both despicable and cowardly, as I said on the match thread even when the sport was full of "dirty" incidents a few years ago that was the most despised of actions, Dupree would not have had to wait for the ref to give a judgement to leave the field, teammates of the player offended would have taken steps to make sure he left very quickly and quite rightly so.

I just don't understand the disciplinary committee, they are giving out suspensions for what is accidental occurrences, yet seemingly condoning a very deliberate action of intent by the attacking player raising and leading with the elbow going into a tackle, not much of deterrent to stop players doing that, carry on lads its OK.

If that action was performed by the tackler what would happen then, and what would be the difference?

Edited by Harry Stottle
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really struggling with the Dupree one. So it's ok to raise a forearm / elbow with the arm not carrying the ball, and hit a defender with it, just as long as you don't hit him in the head?

It's as if the game is trying to legislate for every specific action, and cannot just adjudge something to be serious foul play

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Really struggling with the Dupree one. So it's ok to raise a forearm / elbow with the arm not carrying the ball, and hit a defender with it, just as long as you don't hit him in the head?

It's as if the game is trying to legislate for every specific action, and cannot just adjudge something to be serious foul play

It did hit his head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

It did hit his head.

Well yes, but the fact that it initially hit the chest was used as a mitigation on the field hence the yellow card instead of a red, and seemingly the reason he's no case to answer at the MRP.

So a forearm / elbow into the chest is seemingly ok? But you'll get 10 mins if you subsequently hit them in the head. Odd.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

tHe gAmEs gOnE !!!

But, in a twist, it’s because players aren’t receiving bans.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dupree one is a poor decision from the panel for me.  They say he is 'bracing for contact' but that contact was an elbow direct to the tackler and I thought it was very dangerous.

If a tackler can be found to be reckless then so can a ball carrier and raising your elbow like that and getting it wrong is just as bad as high contact in a tackle (even if intent was not there).

Seems like a different standard is set depending on whether you are carrying the ball or not - which for me is wrong.

Edited by Dunbar
  • Like 8

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

All we want is consistency!

But also we don’t want robots and we want common sense based on the context of the situation.

  • Like 2

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

But also we don’t want robots and we want common sense based on the context of the situation.

What did you think of the Dupree incident that led to his yellow card on Friday?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO Dupree should have received a few games ban given the both the context and taking a common sense approach, bearing in mind the overall drive to lessen dangerous play...

Hopefully our RL journalists should engage RFL and the ref leadership on how this type of leading with the elbow is seen as safe play not worthy of any ban and given the RFL goals.  Comparing this the Dupree to the Cam Smith incident one which the MRP see as different to the Cam Smith, the Dupree one capable of much much more serious injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, phiggins said:

What did you think of the Dupree incident that led to his yellow card on Friday?

I think I said: he was very lucky. He’s been lucky again here. Mostly, he was lucky because he appeared to be aiming to hit the head first and missed. We seem to be putting more on where the point of first contact is over anything else.

I don’t see it as anything more than that. We have always let the ball carrier get away with more than the tackler.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think I said: he was very lucky. He’s been lucky again here. Mostly, he was lucky because he appeared to be aiming to hit the head first and missed. We seem to be putting more on where the point of first contact is over anything else.

I don’t see it as anything more than that. We have always let the ball carrier get away with more than the tackler.

I do think the disciplinary are leaving themselves exposed to criticism at the moment. One of the issues I've had for a long time is that it is not unusual for them to have these instances where when anything is slightly away from the norm they struggle. I'm thinking things like the Morgan Knowles case for Saints, and things like this one from Dupree. 

Broadly speaking most things are fine and whilst some may think harsh, I'm supportive of the move to punish foul play in the interests of player welfare. However, they do seem to undermine their own efforts with cases like this where they almost go to great lengths to mitigate the players' actions. And I think it was absolutely classless for them to do what they did with Harry Smith earlier in the year. 

The Dupree incident being deemed to be broadly fine just doesn't pass the sniff test. It was very dangerous imo and really should have seen a ban in the interests of player welfare.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

The Dupree decision is a shocker. But so is the Smith one... Horrendous. 

The only thing I can think on this one is that Smith had 4 cases on the disciplinary notes last year for late tackles. I think he was only charged and punished for one of them, but I wonder whether he had been receiving warning letters for the others. Maybe they are making a point.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with every season, every fan will feel aggrieved at some point due to decisions made against one of their players, nothing we can do except get on with it and accept it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

For reference this is the Cam Smith incident which wasn’t even a penalty in game. It’s a ridiculously soft 1 match ban

 

 

Absolutely filthy action from Smith, he must have been carrying one of those hand held tasers for the player to drop to the floor so quickly !!!

It reminds me of how stupid the call from the ref is at the ruck area, when ii has taken 3 or 4 players to ground an attacker but if the marker puts an hand on him and the attacking player falls over hence milking a penalty when in fact it is he who should be penalised for time wasting, and while I am on this rant also when it is very clear than the attacker has trapped/holds the tacklers arm purposefully, if the tackler can be penalised for not releasing why not the tackled player, I sometimes wonder if the refs have ever actually played the game?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, daz39 said:

As with every season, every fan will feel aggrieved at some point due to decisions made against one of their players, nothing we can do except get on with it and accept it.

I do agree broadly with that but not sure that Smith incident is ban worthy at all. I’d have been a bit miffed if it actually had been called up as a penalty but that’s about as harsh as it deserves.

Leeds are appealing it so with our history at the appeals panel it’ll be upgraded to two games 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.