Disciplinary at it again.

[Futtocks]

1 hour ago, OriginalMrC said:

To be honest I'm sick and tired of the meltdown over disciplinary every week. Time to make it a blanket 5 game suspension for sending off. Remove the discretion from the process then maybe we wouldn't have people crying every week .

Do you really think that would stop the complaints?

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Do you really think that would stop the complaints?

I mean, it clearly wouldn't - as we only had one red card this week anyway, IIRC. The discussion points haven't been anything to do with red cards. 

[Harry Stottle]

16 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Sorry, I don't understand, bracing for a tackle has been scorned upon and been against the rules for a very very long time?

Yes with a raised elbow and running into the tackle at speed, I don't think that needs explaining, you tell us you played the sport.

[OriginalMrC]

I was being facetious with my previous comment. The fact is people need to accept that a disciplinary process that has subjectivity built in will have a range of outcomes. If you don't want that then you need to remove subjectivity and there needs to be a blanket approach which I suspect many people won't want either.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

To be honest I'm sick and tired of the meltdown over disciplinary every week. Time to make it a blanket 5 game suspension for sending off. Remove the discretion from the process then maybe we wouldn't have people crying every week .

Interesting idea.....think we'd be watching a very different / lower quality SL each week 

[Dave T]

25 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

I was being facetious with my previous comment. The fact is people need to accept that a disciplinary process that has subjectivity built in will have a range of outcomes. If you don't want that then you need to remove subjectivity and there needs to be a blanket approach which I suspect many people won't want either.

There is a fair argument that football has a simpler and less subjective system. We dish out a lot of bans for offences that are not red cards - and I'm not convinced that logic flows well for me. 

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes with a raised elbow and running into the tackle at speed, I don't think that needs explaining, you tell us you played the sport.

You see, this is what I want to know.

Dupree has been cleared of foul play by the disciplinary and yet you say that Dupree's action has been scorned upon and been against the rules for a very very long time.

Yet, when a Leigh player is cleared of foul play, you say he has been fully vindicated.

It couldn't just be as simple as the team they play for could it?

[Harry Stottle]

53 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

You see, this is what I want to know.

Dupree has been cleared of foul play by the disciplinary and yet you say that Dupree's action has been scorned upon and been against the rules for a very very long time.

Yet, when a Leigh player is cleared of foul play, you say he has been fully vindicated.

It couldn't just be as simple as the team they play for could it?

What do you think?

Irrespective of what team any one plays for, in my time in this game there I have been witness to hundreds of tackles in the manner of driving the shoulder into the legs above the knee, non have been sited and indeed in the game v Saints a few weeks ago apart from save for a number of Saints fans, John Wilkin and Liam Moore who sent player to the sin bin no one else including the MRP saw any problem he was not cautioned for anything, indeed the club requested the review with the MRP because of something I didn't know in that if a player gets 3 referrals they add up to a 1 match penalty notice, it was that that was exonerated not foul play.

Now back to the 'Elbow' I don't think you are doing anything but having a dig at me, no one seemingly excepting the MRP are of any other opinion that the said action did not warrant a penalty notice, I assume that the MRP would have viewed the elbow incident which required no further action and Cam Smith's apparent Grade B offence in their judgement which warranted a one match suspension? Since further reduced.

In your opinion should the elbow have been penalised with a suspension by the MRP, and should the leg tackle also have carried a suspension?

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

What do you think?

Irrespective of what team any one plays for, in my time in this game there I have been witness to hundreds of tackles in the manner of driving the shoulder into the legs above the knee, non have been sited and indeed in the game v Saints a few weeks ago apart from save for a number of Saints fans, John Wilkin and Liam Moore who sent player to the sin bin no one else including the MRP saw any problem he was not cautioned for anything, indeed the club requested the review with the MRP because of something I didn't know in that if a player gets 3 referrals they add up to a 1 match penalty notice, it was that that was exonerated not foul play.

Now back to the 'Elbow' I don't think you are doing anything but having a dig at me, no one seemingly excepting the MRP are of any other opinion that the said action did not warrant a penalty notice, I assume that the MRP would have viewed the elbow incident which required no further action and Cam Smith's apparent Grade B offence in their judgement which warranted a one match suspension? Since further reduced.

In your opinion should the elbow have been penalised with a suspension by the MRP, and should the leg tackle also have carried a suspension?

I will explain why I am replying on this thread to you.

As I have said on this thread, I am happy to comment on any panel decision and, of course, for others to do the same.

But if you search through the pages of this site, you will see time and again posts from you criticising the disciplinary panel and suggesting it is not fit for purpose and yet when it clears a Leigh player of foul play you start a new thread stating that the panel has completely vindicated the player.

It’s like a politician branding a newspaper fake news over and over and then quoting an article when it says something nice about them, I just find the whole hypocrisy of it laughable.

 

[JohnM]

Exactly. Additionally, it's one thing to discuss match incidents, to seek clarity over the rules and their interpretation but it is a completely different thing to react to the actions of the disciplinary panel  with a conditioned "it's not fair" reflex from the games perpetual victims.

 Just let the properly constituted panel get on with its job, including any appeals, any explanations.  It's nailed on that if there were full transparency, including sitting in public, the naysayers would still deliver ill- informed criticism.

[Bull Mania]

Neither of Toulouse's red cards (one of which resulted in a player being knocked cleaned out) have been charged by the MRP...

Edited April 4 by Bull Mania

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, Bull Mania said:

Neither of Toulouse's red cards (one of which resulted in a player being knocked cleaned out) have been charged by the MRP...

Are Championship not a week later than Super League? Not sure if that is the case but it used to be didnt it?

[Simon Hall]

55 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Are Championship not a week later than Super League? Not sure if that is the case but it used to be didnt it?

Liam Harris has got a 1 match ban from that game so I'd presume the Toulouse players apparent non-misdemeanours have been looked at as well.

 

[The Phantom Horseman]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Are Championship not a week later than Super League? Not sure if that is the case but it used to be didnt it?

The Match Review Panel meeting takes place on the Thursday after the games, but any bans don't come into play until the following weekend (because any appeals/tribunals aren't heard until the Tuesday after the initial ban is announced).

Edited April 4 by The Phantom Horseman

[Bull Mania]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Are Championship not a week later than Super League? Not sure if that is the case but it used to be didnt it?

The MRP decide on the Thursday what is charged, the bans come into effect the week after. They've presumably ruled both are legal as neither have even had a grade A. 

I know the MRP don't have the easiest of jobs ( The Dupree incident which has split opinion being an example) but I  watched the York game as a complete neutral and I cannot give any logical explanation why they deemed Cam Smiths "bump" to deserve a ban, yet two red cards were completely legal. Hansons was accidental contact but it was woeful technique and they've be dishing out bans for accidental head clashes all year. So what's the reasoning for deeming his tackle was legal.

Akauola sparked a York player out (not this first time his technique has done this to a player) again they deem this to be legal as neither have been charged with even a grade A. 

[LeeF]

And that’s why the RFL should be sharing details of the “no charge” incidents like they have done for many years until this one 

[JohnM]

I don't agree. The more detail that is published, the more the complaints, arguments  and negativity towards the whole process. It'd be like the Socerers Apprentice in Fantasia. 

 

[Dave T]

Yes, less transparency is the answer. 

[JohnM]

That would be good for the health of the many. There be far lower incidence of fan apoplexy at the perceived injustices meted out to their clubs. 

Some will not be satisfied even if the panel met in public with guilt or innocence, punishment etc decided by the audience. 

[Dunbar]

Didn't want to start a new thread but Sylvestor Namo has received 5 matches for his tackle that injured Isa in the Cas Wigan game.

For the life of me, I can't see the reason.  A horrible and unlucky outcome but surely this is a tackle we see a hundred time a game with contact around the hip of Isa.

 

[Damien]

19 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Didn't want to start a new thread but Sylvestor Namo has received 5 matches for his tackle that injured Isa in the Cas Wigan game.

For the life of me, I can't see the reason.  A horrible and unlucky outcome but surely this is a tackle we see a hundred time a game with contact around the hip of Isa.

 

Think that is incredibly harsh. It is just unlucky and he did nothing wrong for me. If Isa hadn't have broken his ankle then it wouldn't have even been looked at, it was just a typical tackle that we see time and time again in a game.

[EagleEyePie]

15 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Didn't want to start a new thread but Sylvestor Namo has received 5 matches for his tackle that injured Isa in the Cas Wigan game.

For the life of me, I can't see the reason.  A horrible and unlucky outcome but surely this is a tackle we see a hundred time a game with contact around the hip of Isa.

 

I think the ban is for the knee going into the lower leg/ankle. The contact area with his shoulder is absolutely fine, but he's coming in 3rd man and pretty much knee sliding into contact. It's hard to argue there's any malice in that, but it's also hard to argue it isn't dangerous contact and very clumsy tackle technique. Your lower body shouldn't be clattering into the ball carriers legs when making a tackle.

[Dave T]

31 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Didn't want to start a new thread but Sylvestor Namo has received 5 matches for his tackle that injured Isa in the Cas Wigan game.

For the life of me, I can't see the reason.  A horrible and unlucky outcome but surely this is a tackle we see a hundred time a game with contact around the hip of Isa.

 

Yeah, looks a strange one. One thing that maybe looks odd is the tacklers knee goes into Isa, but not sure if that's me looking for something rather than being a real offence. 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

I think the ban is for the knee going into the lower leg/ankle. The contact area with his shoulder is absolutely fine, but he's coming in 3rd man and pretty much knee sliding into contact. It's hard to argue there's any malice in that, but it's also hard to argue it isn't dangerous contact and very clumsy tackle technique. Your lower body shouldn't be clattering into the ball carriers legs when making a tackle.

Beat me to it, that's what I thought I'd seen. It does appear to be an unusual position for the tacklers knee to be. 

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

I think the ban is for the knee going into the lower leg/ankle. The contact area with his shoulder is absolutely fine, but he's coming in 3rd man and pretty much knee sliding into contact. It's hard to argue there's any malice in that, but it's also hard to argue it isn't dangerous contact and very clumsy tackle technique. Your lower body shouldn't be clattering into the ball carriers legs when making a tackle.

The charge detail says "Dangerous Contact - Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player."

I just cannot see this as there is no attempt to bend, twist or apply pressure that would cause any risk.