JWH sent into retirement by the RFL

[JohnM]

I had absolutely no idea that my jocular suggestion was not original and was already union practice.

[bratman]

Appeal successful 

[Agbrigg]

32 minutes ago, bratman said:

Appeal successful 

Yet another example of how Wigan have too much influence on the disciplinary system in order to get their desired outcome. 

 

[StandOffHalf]

Thank the Lord!

This successful appeal undermines the points process though, and suggests that they don't have faith in the system.

[Damien]

I knew this would happen with it being a final.

[JohnM]

38 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

Yet another example of how Wigan have too much influence on the disciplinary system in order to get their desired outcome. 

 

Yet another example of due process being followed. The system clearly works. 

[graveyard johnny]

"when the big dog barks, all the other dogs start barking" hope he goes out on a high- great player with a great career

Edited October 7 by graveyard johnny

[Father Ted]

A 3 match ban overturned on appeal. Never heard of that before, probably because it's never happened before.

No doubt because Wigan appealed the original decision as well as HKR.

 

 

[RSN]

1 hour ago, Father Ted said:

A 3 match ban overturned on appeal. Never heard of that before, probably because it's never happened before.

No doubt because Wigan appealed the original decision as well as HKR.

 

 

If Hull KR want to win the game they'll need his experience. 

At the end of the day he's played 4 grand finals winning the last 3 of them. There is not many players in Hull KRs team who have won 1. 

Experience is absolutely crucial to winning big games, his impact on his team mates will be absolutely massive. 

Feel free to quote this post when he does a 2003 Adrian Morley esq send off in the opening seconds but if he stays on the field (I think he will) he will be a massive asset. 

 

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, Father Ted said:

A 3 match ban overturned on appeal. Never heard of that before, probably because it's never happened before.

No doubt because Wigan appealed the original decision as well as HKR.

Ha, never mess with Neil Hudgell. The Post Office, Fujitsu and Government combined couldn’t beat him, so the RFL muppets had no chance

[Dunbar]

To be fair, getting sent off in the Grand Final is a much more appropriate end to his career.

[RP London]

2 hours ago, Father Ted said:

A 3 match ban overturned on appeal. Never heard of that before, probably because it's never happened before.

No doubt because Wigan appealed the original decision as well as HKR.

 

 

Technically all they have to do is appeal the points he got for this therefore negating any ban because he doesn't reach the points total. 

Points system in action... For good or bad

[phiggins]

13 hours ago, Damien said:

I knew this would happen with it being a final.

Was always likely to happen because it seems quite rare that the tribunal is in agreement with the MRP. The way around that this year was to stop clubs appealing with the threat of extra points being given. But I suspect that the frameworks or guidelines aren't robust enough, and someone like Hudgell will be able to pick holes in MRP decisions

[Click]

11 hours ago, Dunbar said:

To be fair, getting sent off in the Grand Final is a much more appropriate end to his career.

McIlorum is also potentially back for them, so two players that may be sent off.

[Worzel]

14 hours ago, Damien said:

I knew this would happen with it being a final.

Regardless of this JWH case in particular, I think the sport should re-think how this new aggregate points system interacts with a play-off structure. It really does risk disproportionate punishment for minor offences. I don't think that was ever the intention. 

My proposal: They should have a re-set for the finals series, or at least before the semi-finals, even if players then do still carry the underlying regular season points into next year. 

In the football World Cup, previous cards are now wiped clean after the quarter finals, ensuring that a player won't miss the final because they get a yellow in the semi final having earlier got one in say the group rounds (the famous "Gazza tears" situation before this change was made). That seems like a sensible solution to this type of "extreme punishment for minor offence" scenario. I mean, it's hardly rocket science this stuff is it?  

Edited October 8 by Worzel
Typo

[Damien]

45 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Regardless of this JWH case in particular, I think the sport should re-think how this new aggregate points system interacts with a play-off structure. It really does risk disproportionate punishment for minor offences. I don't think that was ever the intention. 

My proposal: They should have a re-set for the finals series, or at least before the semi-finals, even if players then do still carry the underlying regular season points into next year. 

In the football World Cup, previous cards are now wiped clean after the quarter finals, ensuring that a player won't miss the final because they get a yellow in the semi final having earlier got one in say the group rounds (the famous "Gazza tears" situation before this change was made). That seems like a sensible solution to this type of "extreme punishment for minor offence" scenario. I mean, it's hardly rocket science this stuff is it?  

I don't think there should be a reset just for finals per se and don't see why players should be excused poor behaviour prior and get a free ride. I would be open though to some sort of reduction based on games played rather than just a simple 12 month period. I'm not sure players that have played a lot more games should necessarily be treated exactly the same as players that have played less.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I don't think there should be a reset just for finals per se and don't see why players should be excused poor behaviour prior and get a free ride. I would be open though to some sort of reduction based on games played rather than just a simple 12 month period. I'm not sure players that have played a lot more games should necessarily be treated exactly the same as players that have played less.

I think in a sport that has a system of regular rounds with less jeopardy, followed by a knock-out phase with absolute jeopardy, it's quite clear that missing a knock-out game is a more severe punishment for player and club than missing a regular season match. That's why in football comps they used to wipe the slate after the group phase, and now they wipe it after the quarters instead, to try and offset that disparity.  

The play-off matches are extra games. In effect it's an entirely new competition, all the regular season does is decide the seeding for that subsequent competition, much like qualifying laps do in Formula 1. 

[Just Browny]

42 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I think in a sport that has a system of regular rounds with less jeopardy, followed by a knock-out phase with absolute jeopardy, it's quite clear that missing a knock-out game is a more severe punishment for player and club than missing a regular season match. That's why in football comps they used to wipe the slate after the group phase, and now they wipe it after the quarters instead, to try and offset that disparity.  

The play-off matches are extra games. In effect it's an entirely new competition, all the regular season does is decide the seeding for that subsequent competition, much like qualifying laps do in Formula 1. 

I think that's a very odd precedent to want to set just because you didn't agree with one decision.

If someone 'decapitates' (to coin a phrase) another player in Rd 27 and attracts a 4-match ban, they absolutely should be banned for subsequent play off games. Just as we transition bans from one season to the next, and include international games (although that one does get a bit messy and isn't applied consistently).

[Worzel]

7 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

I think that's a very odd precedent to want to set just because you didn't agree with one decision.

If someone 'decapitates' (to coin a phrase) another player in Rd 27 and attracts a 4-match ban, they absolutely should be banned for subsequent play off games. Just as we transition bans from one season to the next, and include international games (although that one does get a bit messy and isn't applied consistently).

It's not because I don't agree with one decision. JWH wasn't guilty anyway. It's because I believe in a sport with a play-off structure, we have an inherently flawed system. I said so several weeks ago when this risk was foreseen and it got discussed here. Your "decapitation" would be a red card, which we could address in a different way. It just needs thought. 

Football manages to address it, I've no idea why suggesting we do something similar is so radical.

[StandOffHalf]

10 minutes ago, Worzel said:

It's not because I don't agree with one decision. JWH wasn't guilty anyway. It's because I believe in a sport with a play-off structure, we have an inherently flawed system. I said so several weeks ago when this risk was foreseen and it got discussed here. Your "decapitation" would be a red card, which we could address in a different way. It just needs thought. 

Football manages to address it, I've no idea why suggesting we do something similar is so radical.

Yes, a red card offence could be a ban as normal. Minor offences could be wiped clean after the Regular Season. I think that would make sense.

[RP London]

29 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

Yes, a red card offence could be a ban as normal. Minor offences could be wiped clean after the Regular Season. I think that would make sense.

For me this is the way to do it... someone who is a bit of a grub should still run the risk of "one more" and they could miss the final.. i dont have an issue with players missing the final due to a ban after all players can miss the final due to being illegally king hitted weeks/months before so I dont see an issue with bans going on into the final. What I would probably look at is having a level of points allocations being wiped off. ie (and not sure how the scoring goes) but if its 1 -5 level of incident then take off all points that were awarded for level 1 incidents or level 1 and 2.. therefore a minor breech wont see a ban but a more major on top of loads of more majors does.. 

[gingerjon]

33 minutes ago, RP London said:

For me this is the way to do it... someone who is a bit of a grub should still run the risk of "one more" and they could miss the final.. i dont have an issue with players missing the final due to a ban after all players can miss the final due to being illegally king hitted weeks/months before so I dont see an issue with bans going on into the final. What I would probably look at is having a level of points allocations being wiped off. ie (and not sure how the scoring goes) but if its 1 -5 level of incident then take off all points that were awarded for level 1 incidents or level 1 and 2.. therefore a minor breech wont see a ban but a more major on top of loads of more majors does.. 

It only works if you actually dish out cards and, notably, play offs and finals have fewer because they are reffed more laxly.

So we'd be banning less and reffing more leniently.

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It only works if you actually dish out cards and, notably, play offs and finals have fewer because they are reffed more laxly.

So we'd be banning less and reffing more leniently.

I think points can work even in the system we have now as they are retrospective on watching the video.

However, I do also agree with you that we really do need to use the cards more. Sin bin and reds affect the game where the incident occurs.. and where injuries may have been caused etc so I do think they should be used more/better than they are now. 

[Spidey]

I have no issues with players missing playoffs/finals if they have exhibited thuggish behaviour over the normal season, maybe missing more big games will incentivise players to play to the laws of the game.  As it stands they probably know an appeal gets them back on the field.  Happened with Knowles the other year didn't it?  Process just becomes a farce when near these games

[Taffy Tiger]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

I think in a sport that has a system of regular rounds with less jeopardy, followed by a knock-out phase with absolute jeopardy, it's quite clear that missing a knock-out game is a more severe punishment for player and club than missing a regular season match. That's why in football comps they used to wipe the slate after the group phase, and now they wipe it after the quarters instead, to try and offset that disparity.  

The play-off matches are extra games. In effect it's an entirely new competition, all the regular season does is decide the seeding for that subsequent competition, much like qualifying laps do in Formula 1. 

This would work if a player's disciplinary points were wiped out for everyone at the end of the season , but they aren't . It's a rolling 12 month points record , so in reality there's no difference between regular season games and playoffs , during that 12 month period . It just seems harsher because of the magnitude of the matches that players would be missing . A player knows when he goes into the playoffs exactly what his points tally is and should act accordingly , in the same way as the regular season . That said , I wouldn't be against the lowest grade charges (1 point) being deferred so that the player can choose to serve any ban after a big match like the Playoffs or GF, instead of missing the higher profile games. They should still serve a ban though in the same way as any other player in the regular season would have to . 

Edited October 8 by Taffy Tiger