Disciplinary at it again.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, dboy said:

If that tackle occurred, but Isa got up and played on...where is the foul???

 

Surely if the tackle was a foul then it was a foul whether ISA got hurt or not.  Or was it only foul because he got hurt in your view?

[dboy]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Surely if the tackle was a foul then it was a foul whether ISA got hurt or not.  Or was it only foul because he got hurt in your view?

So you mean if he'd made that same tackle, still contacting the ankle, but NOT resulting in any kind of injury or hindrance to Isa...it's still a foul.

I doubt it would have been picked up by the ref, but possibly still by the MRP though.

In that scenario (no injurious outcome), it wouldn't have been Grade F though would it - slap on the wrist/warning/1 match/just a fine? Who knows.

The charge was "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."

Which part of that charge is incorrect?

Edited April 16 by dboy

[dboy]

We can look forward to the adjudication to clear it all up...

6.4. Adjudications The Tribunal’s adjudications will:

- Be published in full;

- Include all aggravating and/or mitigating factors taken into consideration;

- Give clear and full reasons for the decision;

- Summarise the cases of the Compliance Manager and Player respectively;

- Confirm the sanction (if any) handed down including all aggravating and/or mitigating factors taken into consideration;

- Explain any deviation from the On Field Sentencing Guidelines;

- Give clear and full reasons for the decision.

[Dunbar]

10 hours ago, dboy said:

So you mean if he'd made that same tackle, still contacting the ankle, but NOT resulting in any kind of injury or hindrance to Isa...it's still a foul.

I doubt it would have been picked up by the ref, but possibly still by the MRP though.

In that scenario (no injurious outcome), it wouldn't have been Grade F though would it - slap on the wrist/warning/1 match/just a fine? Who knows.

The charge was "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."

Which part of that charge is incorrect?

Of course, that is the only way this can work.

The laws/charge say that the twist, bend or pressure is the risk to cause injury.

The length of any ban may hinge on injury caused but not the action of committing the foul itself.  A tackle cannot be legal if it doesn't cause injury and illegal if it causes injury, there has to be an action that is illegal by the tackler for it to be a foul - injury or not.

Edited April 17 by Dunbar

[dboy]

I am surprised that Cas couldn't get it down to an E Grade though...I reckon they will appeal.

I certainly didn't see an aggressive and violent manner to the challenge.

[Dunbar]

9 minutes ago, dboy said:

I am surprised that Cas couldn't get it down to an E Grade though...I reckon they will appeal.

I certainly didn't see an aggressive and violent manner to the challenge.

I don't think it comes under that category, I believe it is 15.1(i) other contrary behaviour including dangerous contact.

 

[dboy]

Yes, 15.1 is the charge.

I'm quoting the sentencing guidelines there - it's a separate document.

Microsoft Word - OnFieldCompliance_Procedures_Sentencing_Guidelines_2023.docx (rugby-league.com) 

It is odd if they are using the "kicks" sentencing as F grade is specifically for attacks to the head, which this clearly isn't.

[dboy]

Surely Cas haven't done their homework here, or we are all looking at the incident incorrectly??

The charge (15.1b), is specific to attacks to the head and neck.

The offence/ban is nothing to do with the leg injury??

 

Edited April 16 by dboy

[Dave T]

10 hours ago, Dunbar said:

True, but they usually fall into a category we know that the disciplinary panel/ref's are looking for... a late tackle, a high shot, a tackle on the kicker.

I would ask anyone to answer this - if you were watching that game and saw that tackle and Isa got up and played the ball and the game carried on, would you recognise any foul play?

I think this comes under the same kind of tackle as the ninja tackle and the like. 

On your 2nd para, possibly not, but I think plenty of things just fly by, I don't think it should be ignored just because it is subtle. When I watched it, the knee in the tavkle was the first thing I saw as problematic. 

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I think this comes under the same kind of tackle as the ninja tackle and the like. 

On your 2nd para, possibly not, but I think plenty of things just fly by, I don't think it should be ignored just because it is subtle. When I watched it, the knee in the tavkle was the first thing I saw as problematic. 

Although these things are done at speed or when a players is falling onto another and his focus is on an upper body part/lending weight into a gang tackle, still should be classed as foul play and as you say, problematic.

Unfortunately the RFL occasionally miss these such as the Lacans injury caused by a Halton hip drop, supplemented by Hardaker tackle.

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, Dave T said:

The descriptions are useless, but I think using a knee to apply pressure on the players leg could be covered by that. 

You consider that he thought about putting the knee into Isa's ankle purposefully to cause injury? 

[LeeF]

The MRP would have probably reviewed the incident as it looks wrong as @Dave T says.

Any ban can be lengthened due to injuries received. The initial grading is determined by the actual incident - didn’t Cas get it downgraded from F to E - not the outcome.

As posted fairly regularly on this forum the defender has a duty of care towards the ball carrier and accident or not this incident seems to show that this was lacking in this instance so a charge and ban etc are fully justified.

For hearings that go to a full Disciplinary hearing the minutes are usually published either the day after or once the club/ player have confirmed that there will be no appeal so hopefully these will published either today or later this week.

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I would ask anyone to answer this - if you were watching that game and saw that tackle and Isa got up and played the ball and the game carried on, would you recognise any foul play?

Absolutely not.

And to all those who are intimating that there could be some form of malpractice, where were your comments prior to the farcical judgement being made?

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, LeeF said:

The MRP would have probably reviewed the incident as it looks wrong as @Dave T says.

Any ban can be lengthened due to injuries received. The initial grading is determined by the actual incident - didn’t Cas get it downgraded from F to E - not the outcome.

As posted fairly regularly on this forum the defender has a duty of care towards the ball carrier and accident or not this incident seems to show that this was lacking in this instance so a charge and ban etc are fully justified.

For hearings that go to a full Disciplinary hearing the minutes are usually published either the day after or once the club/ player have confirmed that there will be no appeal so hopefully these will published either today or later this week.

I am fully on board with the duty of care.  But equally, I think we also need to accept that in a collision sport accidents are bound to happen and I cannot think that a player hitting a hip/thigh with a shoulder will simultaneously contact an ankle with his knee in anything other than an accident that occurs once in a thousand tackles (or maybe more).

We cannot legislate to eliminate accidents and I personally believe that it is unfair to do this here and the ban is because a player suffered an unfortunate injury.

[Dave T]

45 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

You consider that he thought about putting the knee into Isa's ankle purposefully to cause injury? 

No, but I also don't think many fouls are because somebody thought they do it to hurt them. I don't think most high tackles are intentional, but we still dish out bans. 

[Dunbar]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

No, but I also don't think many fouls are because somebody thought they do it to hurt them. I don't think most high tackles are intentional, but we still dish out bans. 

But surely that is because contact with a players head is explicitly stated as against the laws of the game.

It is not against the laws for a player to make contact with an oppositions ankle with his knee and so the question comes down to whether he used his body to twist or bend the ankle or apply unnecessary pressure as the laws state.  I would say no.

Before we ban a player, I would want to know what foul he committed.  I cannot see a foul here, I just see an unfortunate accident. 

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

But surely that is because contact with a players head is explicitly stated as against the laws of the game.

It is not against the laws for a player to make contact with an oppositions ankle with his knee and so the question comes down to whether he used his body to twist or bend the ankle or apply unnecessary pressure as the laws state.  I would say no.

Before we ban a player, I would want to know what foul he committed.  I cannot see a foul here, I just see an unfortunate accident. 

As a few people have pointed out, it is likely to be covered by the words "used his body to.... apply unnecessary pressure". In this case, the tacklers knee applied pressure on Isa's leg. You can't tackle and use your knee on the ball carrier's legs in a dangerous way - I think there is clear wording for a foul to be called.

Whether we believe it was dangerous/intentional/reckless etc is the bit for debate. 

[Harry Stottle]

43 minutes ago, Dave T said:

No, but I also don't think many fouls are because somebody thought they do it to hurt them. I don't think most high tackles are intentional, but we still dish out bans. 

It is a mere ripple we are seeing this season Dave, just wait till next year when the armpit and below tsunami rolls in.

I know it isn't in yet, but having seen a tackle/contact around the shoulder area very early on in Sunday's televised game I thought I would tally them up, I gave up after 20 mins!

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It is a mere ripple we are seeing this season Dave, just wait till next year when the armpit and below tsunami rolls in.

I know it isn't in yet, but having seen a tackle/contact around the shoulder area very early on in Sunday's televised game I thought I would tally them up, I gave up after 20 mins!

That seems a odd thing to put yourself through when it's irrelevant as it's legal right now mate.

[Dave T]

25 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

But surely that is because contact with a players head is explicitly stated as against the laws of the game.

It is not against the laws for a player to make contact with an oppositions ankle with his knee and so the question comes down to whether he used his body to twist or bend the ankle or apply unnecessary pressure as the laws state.  I would say no.

Before we ban a player, I would want to know what foul he committed.  I cannot see a foul here, I just see an unfortunate accident. 

"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."

This is the charge and I think the wording does cover this incident. (red words to be excluded as irrelevant)

Edited April 17 by Dave T

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

As a few people have pointed out, it is likely to be covered by the words "used his body to.... apply unnecessary pressure". In this case, the tacklers knee applied pressure on Isa's leg. You can't tackle and use your knee on the ball carrier's legs in a dangerous way - I think there is clear wording for a foul to be called.

Whether we believe it was dangerous/intentional/reckless etc is the bit for debate. 

I understand that interpretation.  But are we getting to a point where all tackles that result in injuries could be interpreted as unessesary pressure.

As for applying pressure with the shoulder (targeting the hip) and knee (targeting the ankle) at the same time.  I cannot see how that is an action that can be described an anything other than accidental. 

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Whether we believe it was dangerous/intentional/reckless etc is the bit for debate. 

Or maybe unintentional and a freak accident could be added, I wonder whether the MRP considered those to the wording you quote below. I doubt it they must consider it had a semblance of intention to award 5 games.

 

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

used his body to.... apply unnecessary pressure".

 

[Dave T]

Just now, Dunbar said:

I understand that interpretation.  But are we getting to a point where all tackles that result in injuries could be interpreted as unessesary pressure.

As for applying pressure with the shoulder (targeting the hip) and knee (targeting the ankle) at the same time.  I cannot see how that is an action that can be described an anything other than accidental. 

On your first line - I don't agree - the word unnecessary is important here - as per my first viewing, I think the tackler's body was in an unusual position, we see many third man in tackles that don't involve your knee being part of that tackle.

On your second line - I'm not sure why you think it is impossible to do that intentionally or recklessly? The fact that these tackles are not common suggests it is possible to not do it - I don't think because he did do it it is accidental.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Or maybe unintentional and a freak accident could be added, I wonder whether the MRP considered those to the wording you quote below. I doubt it they must consider it had a semblance of intention to award 5 games.

 

 

If it's a freak accident, there would be no charge - but the onus is always on the player. Players coming in 3rd man to hit around the hip don't normally have their knees involved. He got it wrong - that isn't on anyone else. 

[dboy]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

You consider that he thought about putting the knee into Isa's ankle purposefully to cause injury? 

Intention is irrelevant to it being foul play and does not excuse the action.