Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Just read Keighley's website discussion of a new penalty points-based disciplinary/onfield sanctioning system. Am I alone in not having seen anything about this previously? The main impact seems to be that it's bad news for persistent offenders, wheras you can get a Grade C judgement and not face a ban unless you already have previous offences that are not spent. Basically like the points-based driving ban system.

https://keighleycougars.uk/brad-england-receives-grade-d-charge

I genuinely haven't seen anything about this on the RFL website or through any of the RL journos.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

"I won’t engage in a debate because the above is correct and if anything else is stated to the contrary it’s incorrect." 


Posted
1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Just read Keighley's website discussion of a new penalty points-based disciplinary/onfield sanctioning system. Am I alone in not having seen anything about this previously? The main impact seems to be that it's bad news for persistent offenders, wheras you can get a Grade C judgement and not face a ban unless you already have previous offences that are not spent. Basically like the points-based driving ban system.

https://keighleycougars.uk/brad-england-receives-grade-d-charge

I genuinely haven't seen anything about this on the RFL website or through any of the RL journos.

The sport doesn't really speak to its customer base any more.

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Dave T said:

The sport doesn't really speak to its customer base any more.

Yeah, I mean that's what I'm thinking too obviously, but I just wanted to check I hadn't missed anything. If I'm honest my first thought was that it was quirky old Keighley going out on a limb again.

At a time of year when RL journos are desperate to push out any old nonsense to get clicks/revenue, you have to assume there has been no official announcement/press release about these changes, otherwise we'd have a bunch of articles about them (along with the obligatory "top 5 players who thsi will impact most in 2025" features).

I mean, this is a genuinely intereting development that would stimulate some conversation, at least amongst the anoraky types like us who inhabit these forums, yet...nothing.

Edited by The Phantom Horseman
  • Like 5

"I won’t engage in a debate because the above is correct and if anything else is stated to the contrary it’s incorrect." 

Posted
5 hours ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Yeah, I mean that's what I'm thinking too obviuously, but I just wanted to check I hadn't missed anything. If I'm honest my first thought was that it was quirky old Keighley going out on a limb again.

At a time of year when RL journos are desperate to push out any old nonsense to get clicks/revenue, you have to assume there has been no official annoucnement/press release about these changes, otherwise we'd have a bunch of articles about them (along with the obligatory "top 5 players who thsi will impact most in 2025" features).

I mean, this is a genuinely intereting development that would stimulate some conversation, at least amongst the anoraky types like us who inhabit these forums, yet...nothing.

That would have been on a fax or similar. 

Posted

A couple of things to pick up on here.

5 A grade charges in 12 months still wouldn't result in a ban whereas 1 D grade charge results in a 2 match ban. Also a C grade first offence registers no ban either. Bonkers.

Getting sent off seems to reduce your the points you pick up (presumably because you've already served some of your punishment) Bonkers

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Seems to have slipped under the radar but also discussed here

 

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)

Posted

It shouldn't be up to the media and the clubs to announce and explain the changes to the system, should it? Unless I've missed something like a formal announcemen.

Posted
23 hours ago, JohnM said:

It shouldn't be up to the media and the clubs to announce and explain the changes to the system, should it? Unless I've missed something like a formal announcemen.

It does seem really bizarre that this news was broken by a league 1 club on their website, and nobody seems to have explained whether Keighley broke an embargo or whether in fact this was never going to be officially announced.

  • Like 1

"I won’t engage in a debate because the above is correct and if anything else is stated to the contrary it’s incorrect." 

  • John Drake changed the title to New disciplinary system (Merged Threads)
Posted

The changes seem reasonable to me, but:

- There needs to be a transparent way of seeing how many points a player currently has (basically, a league table that is kept up to date).

- It's crazy that there hasn't been a proper explanation anywhere.

I support:

- The idea of taking a player's overall record into account more consistently, including the intention of ensuring minor charges have some impact (but not a disproportionate one)

- The intention of reducing appeals

  • Like 6

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

The changes seem reasonable to me, but:

- There needs to be a transparent way of seeing how many points a player currently has (basically, a league table that is kept up to date).

- It's crazy that there hasn't been a proper explanation anywhere.

I support:

- The idea of taking a player's overall record into account more consistently, including the intention of ensuring minor charges have some impact (but not a disproportionate one)

- The intention of reducing appeals

I agree with all of the above.

It will cause controversy because 1) it's complicated (though so was the previous system) and 2) there will be some bans handed out that seem totally disproportionate to the offence that triggers the ban. For instance you could have 2 players in the same game sin binned for disputing a referee's decision - both get Grade B gradings, one gets no ban and the other gets a 5-game ban because of their previous record and the totting-up system.

Personally, I'm ok with that, but we can all guess how plenty of people are going to react.

That's why Just Browny makes the very important point above that we need an updated league table so everyone knows where they stand before the bans are dished out.

However, as the RFL still don't appear to have announced, or even acknowledged, the new system, I'm not holding my breath!

Edited by The Phantom Horseman
  • Like 1

"I won’t engage in a debate because the above is correct and if anything else is stated to the contrary it’s incorrect." 

Posted

So does it REALLY work like this in the scenario below :-

 

1)  Player carries forward 21 points into new season

2) Round 1 - player is charged with a Grade B offence (+3 Points) - new points total 24

3) Player banned for 4 games due to points total of 24

4) Sits out rounds 2 to 5 and all the points are still within the 12 month period so points still the same on his return

5) Returns for Round 6 game and gets charged again with a grade b offence (+ 3 pts) - new points total 27

6) Player banned for 4 games and is fined due to points total of 27

7) Sits out rounds 7-10

8 ) Returns for round 11

 

So the player plays 2 games in the first 10 for two grade B offences - at least this is the way I think the fans will see it

Could someone please tell me this is not how this new system is going to work.

Here we go again .....

 

Posted
1 hour ago, DemonUK said:

So does it REALLY work like this in the scenario below :-

 

1)  Player carries forward 21 points into new season

2) Round 1 - player is charged with a Grade B offence (+3 Points) - new points total 24

3) Player banned for 4 games due to points total of 24

4) Sits out rounds 2 to 5 and all the points are still within the 12 month period so points still the same on his return

5) Returns for Round 6 game and gets charged again with a grade b offence (+ 3 pts) - new points total 27

6) Player banned for 4 games and is fined due to points total of 27

7) Sits out rounds 7-10

8 ) Returns for round 11

 

So the player plays 2 games in the first 10 for two grade B offences - at least this is the way I think the fans will see it

Could someone please tell me this is not how this new system is going to work.

Up to a point, but as Aaron Bower has tweeted, they have downgraded the offences since last season so that a B charge from last year is now an A, a C is now a B etc. He has indicated for instance that Micky McIlorum, who had a grade E charge plus 3 grade Bs last season, is on 15 points. That means he's guaranteed a 2-game suspension if he is found guilty of another offence beofre the first of those charges is spent. Personally, I think that's fair enough, they are clearly trying to clamp down on repeat offenders. I don't think there will be many players with more than 15 points going into the season and charges become spent after one year.

"I won’t engage in a debate because the above is correct and if anything else is stated to the contrary it’s incorrect." 

Posted
3 hours ago, Just Browny said:

- The intention of reducing appeals

Dissent will not be tolerated.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Posted
12 minutes ago, Griff said:

Dissent will not be tolerated.

I don't think it's controversial to say that the recent practice of appealing repeatedly with no new evidence in the hope of finding someone who agrees is both quite tedious and probably very expensive for the RFL.

If we accept the mantra that the referee's word is final (and that, indeed, that dissent will not be tolerated) we should want to limit squabbling off the pitch. There will be times when an appeal is justified and the new rules don't stop them being an option.

  • Like 1

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Posted

I have proposed this system a couple of times.

Albeit I also suggested a couple more changes.

1. if a player is in the bin and the opposing team score the player can return before their 10 minutes is up

2. Minor and major red, a minor red means a sub/interchange player can replace the sent off player. Taking them down to 3 on the bench.

Both with the aim or supporting refs in dealing with key decisions. It aims to punish the player but less so the team

Posted

The player with the most points at the end of the season gets presented with an award 

Posted
14 hours ago, Just Browny said:

I don't think it's controversial to say that the recent practice of appealing repeatedly with no new evidence in the hope of finding someone who agrees is both quite tedious and probably very expensive for the RFL.

If we accept the mantra that the referee's word is final (and that, indeed, that dissent will not be tolerated) we should want to limit squabbling off the pitch. There will be times when an appeal is justified and the new rules don't stop them being an option.

I also think that a simple rule to bring in would be that only the captain can speak to the ref unless the ref calls a player over. If you need to speak to the ref, go through your captain.

I think this will benefit the community game more than the professional game but it's just a small change that could make a big impact.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

I also think that a simple rule to bring in would be that only the captain can speak to the ref unless the ref calls a player over. If you need to speak to the ref, go through your captain.

I think this will benefit the community game more than the professional game but it's just a small change that could make a big impact.

Is this not already the rule? It would have to be specific about only speaking to the ref about disciplinary issues; I don't want to see yellow cards for someone asking how long is left or for alerting the ref to an injury.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Posted
1 minute ago, Just Browny said:

Is this not already the rule? It would have to be specific about only speaking to the ref about disciplinary issues; I don't want to see yellow cards for someone asking how long is left or for alerting the ref to an injury.

Of course there has to be some common sense involved.

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.