Disciplinary at it again.

[Loiner]

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.

[The Blues Ox]

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.

[Harry Stottle]

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 April 2 by Harry Stottle

[phiggins]

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

[fighting irish]

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.

[OriginalMrC]

tHe gAmEs gOnE !!!

[sam4731]

I'm convinced that they all decide which incidents deserve a ban, at which point they spin 'The Wheel of Gradings'.

[phiggins]

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.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

tHe gAmEs gOnE !!!

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

[OriginalMrC]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

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

All we want is consistency!

[Dunbar]

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 April 2 by Dunbar

[gingerjon]

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.

[phiggins]

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?

[redjonn]

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.

[Chrispmartha]

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

 

 

[gingerjon]

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.

[meast]

1 hour ago, OriginalMrC said:

tHe gAmEs gOnE !!!

Bring back the biff!

Bring back common assault on sports fields!

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, OriginalMrC said:

All we want is consistency!

We have, consistently giving indifferent judgements.

[Dave T]

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.

[GeordieSaint]

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

[Dave T]

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.

[daz39]

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.

[Harry Stottle]

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?

[Harry Stottle]

51 minutes ago, meast said:

Bring back the biff!

Bring back common assault on sports fields!

Moreso in the judiciary panel. Seems they need some sense knocking in them.

Edited April 2 by Harry Stottle

[Chrispmartha]

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