JWH sent into retirement by the RFL

[phiggins]

5 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Expert witnesses are pretty standard practice in law, double-bubble if they also witnessed the event live.

Like I said before, Paul Cullen shouldn't play games with Hudgell, that's like bringing a knife to a gun fight...!! 

Might be standard practice in law, but that wasn't the question. It's not standard practice in RFL disciplinary tribunals. 

So now, whenever no penalty is given, and the MRP issue a charge, the club can simply appeal and call the matchday officials as witnesses? MRP will soon become redundant, unless some rules and guidelines are tightened up.

[Worzel]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It's literally only football.

And even then, very specifically, international football tournaments.

Club competitions, even those with play offs, accumulate across the season.

Mind you, football takes dealing with foul play seriously and RL never has.

Play-offs don't determine Champions in football, and disciplinary judgements don't aggregate in the same "long run" way in football

But we don't have to agree! I think I'm right and that's good enough for me 

 

[phiggins]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It's literally only football.

And even then, very specifically, international football tournaments.

Club competitions, even those with play offs, accumulate across the season.

Mind you, football takes dealing with foul play seriously and RL never has.

Football does have cut offs during the season though. 5 bookings within a certain number of games gets you a 1 match ban, 10 within another, higher, number of games gets you 2 matches. I think you pretty much have to get a red card to be banned during the last few weeks of the season.

Not sure I'd say football takes dealing with foul play any more seriously than RL. In RL, we re-officiate every match. Football only reviews incidents not seen by the referee on the day.

[Worzel]

4 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Might be standard practice in law, but that wasn't the question. It's not standard practice in RFL disciplinary tribunals. 

So now, whenever no penalty is given, and the MRP issue a charge, the club can simply appeal and call the matchday officials as witnesses? MRP will soon become redundant, unless some rules and guidelines are tightened up.

Why would you not call relevant people as witnesses? I'm struggling to see the downside. Either we want to come to the right conclusion, or we don't

I agree the guidelines need tightening up. The way the MRP currently operates is demonstrably not fit for purpose. It's a job creation exercise for a failed coach and some ex players. Needs to focus on the key issues, not re-litigate every moment in every game like this is an episode of Ally McBeal 

[Worzel]

For anyone interested, which is a number between 0 and 3 at most, here's the minutes...

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance/rules-and-regulations/disciplinary/disciplinary-case?case=19425

My view is that of the club here: Incidents seen and assessed by the referee at the time (especially those also given the benefit of video review in the match), should not be re-reviewed by the MRP. They have enough other things to deal with, either we trust our referees to be competent or we do not.

If they've not seen something, then you can make an argument about that. But the MRP should not be over-ruling match officials unless they've made a monumental error of judgement. That's a slippery slope. 

[Damien]

20 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Why would you not call relevant people as witnesses? I'm struggling to see the downside. Either we want to come to the right conclusion, or we don't

I agree the guidelines need tightening up. The way the MRP currently operates is demonstrably not fit for purpose. It's a job creation exercise for a failed coach and some ex players. Needs to focus on the key issues, not re-litigate every moment in every game like this is an episode of Ally McBeal 

Because it's marking their own homework. They should have no part.

[gingerjon]

24 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Not sure I'd say football takes dealing with foul play any more seriously than RL. In RL, we re-officiate every match. Football only reviews incidents not seen by the referee on the day.

I hadn't realised about the cut offs as I don't follow EPL/EFL that closely.

Football does take it more seriously though. It's more likely to be punished in-game, more likely to be sanctioned outside of the game, and there are consistent and well understood (and applied) rules used across all leagues and competitions at all levels.

We, all the time, tinker and then just make it up.

[Worzel]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

Because it's marking their own homework. They should have no part.

No it isn't, they're witnesses not the decision-maker in this setting. They're being marked, rather than marking. It's perfectly reasonable to have them explain their decisions in detail.

The only reason they had to do that is because the MRP unilaterally extended its own scope: It was never intended for it to re-referee incidents that match officials had already made judgements on, except in extreme circumstances. That was the argument made in the room, with reference to the relevant rules. And that was the judgement that the appeals committee came to. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Worzel said:

No it isn't, they're witnesses not the decision-maker in this setting. They're being marked, rather than marking. It's perfectly reasonable to have them explain their decisions in detail.

The only reason they had to do that is because the MRP unilaterally extended its own scope: It was never intended for it to re-referee incidents that match officials had already made judgements on, except in extreme circumstances. That was the argument made in the room, with reference to the relevant rules. And that was the judgement that the appeals committee came to. 

They've done their part and it's being reviewed by someone else. Again what has happened here is not normal procedure.

[Dave T]

I think it's a bit simpler than some of the discussion that is ongoing here. Firstly, I hate the current system, it's rubbish, and has many flaws imo. 

Secondly - this incident just wasn't worthy of a grade C charge imo. 

I have little respect for JWH, he is a grub who lives and dies by his style - but I just don't think this incident was worthy of any more than a penalty.

The new system does seem to focus on repeat offenders and almost let off the regular incidents that were quite serious that would normally have been 2-3 matches in the old system. I suppose this is comparable to football where a player gets a yellow for removing his shirt that hits a trigger for a ban. We either embrace these things and accept repeat offences are more serious than the odd bad offence.

[Worzel]

22 minutes ago, Damien said:

They've done their part and it's being reviewed by someone else. Again what has happened here is not normal procedure.

You're right, it isn't normal, because the MRP decided to re-litigate a decision that the ref and video ref made, making their attendance almost inevitable. The way of preventing refs having to attend, is for the MRP to stop doing that. See, we agree!! 

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

But I do, for their actions in the competition they're now playing in. The play-offs. 

 

Thats just nonsense pedantry and you know it.

[Worzel]

54 minutes ago, dkw said:

Thats just nonsense pedantry and you know it.

No, it’s an important clarification. Your description didn’t accurately represent my proposal… most likely on purpose, to undermine it. I’ll take my pedantry over wilful misrepresentation, if that’s the choice. 

[RP London]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

Sounds good to me. Can it be televised? Or at least live streamed. Would be great for our digital numbers

DeBeau Paintball inc will be making the guns and balls and will be livestreaming it at £20 a time.. we'll make £gabilliions

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

DeBeau Paintball inc will be making the guns and balls and will be livestreaming it at £20 a time.. we'll make £gabilliions

If we can do it on the Odsal pitch too then it's like a double-word score in Scrabble, maximum Pie & Peas Points

[RP London]

15 minutes ago, Worzel said:

If we can do it on the Odsal pitch too then it's like a double-word score in Scrabble, maximum Pie & Peas Points

KaChing!!!!

Who needs a new TV Deal when we have this sort of stuff just waiting for us!

Edited October 9 by RP London

[g_balls]

The issue here as well, the outcome of an injury or HIA rather than what the action or initial contact was, is influencing a charge. If he didn't fail a HIA there would never have been any sort of case to answer. Players have a different tolerance for HIA's. It is a hard game, there are going to be fair contact injuries. There has to be acceptance of risk if someone wants to play the game. The outcomes should not be punished only the foul play.

Edited October 10 by g_balls

[Dunbar]

23 hours ago, Worzel said:

Expert witnesses are pretty standard practice in law, double-bubble if they also witnessed the event live.

Like I said before, Paul Cullen shouldn't play games with Hudgell, that's like bringing a knife to a gun fight...!! 

I can see why bringing in officials to testify would be extremely relevant if there was no video of the incident. We have seen officials come in when the case has been around things like inappropriate language, and the decisions is then based on all testimony and the balance of who is considered most credible.

But here, there was very clear video evidence of the incident and so all the match officials are doing is providing their opinion on the incident, not explaining what happened. It is not needed to come to a decision – that is the job of the panel.

[Dunbar]

23 hours ago, Worzel said:

Expert witnesses are pretty standard practice in law, double-bubble if they also witnessed the event live.

Like I said before, Paul Cullen shouldn't play games with Hudgell, that's like bringing a knife to a gun fight...!! 

double post

Edited October 10 by Dunbar

[Worzel]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I can see why bringing in officials to testify would be extremely relevant if there was no video of the incident. We have seen officials come in when the case has been around things like inappropriate language, and the decisions is then based on all testimony and the balance of who is considered most credible.

But here, there was very clear video evidence of the incident and so all the match officials are doing is providing their opinion on the incident, not explaining what happened. It is not needed to come to a decision – that is the job of the panel.

The panel came to a decision, like you say that is their job. But in order to do so the panel just thought it would be relevant to hear from witnesses who saw the action live, one of them from 3 metres away. 

The only overreach or oddity here is the MRP stepping out of their scope to re-referree an incident that had already been referreed, both in real time and with video review. Necessitating the calling of the original referrees to explain their decision. If people want to call something out, I'd suggest calling out that.  

[Dunbar]

38 minutes ago, Worzel said:

The panel came to a decision, like you say that is their job. But in order to do so the panel just thought it would be relevant to hear from witnesses who saw the action live, one of them from 3 metres away. 

The only overreach or oddity here is the MRP stepping out of their scope to re-referree an incident that had already been referreed, both in real time and with video review. Necessitating the calling of the original referrees to explain their decision. If people want to call something out, I'd suggest calling out that.  

A couple of points.

In transcript of the hearing that you posted, it was entirely clear that the referee was not making any decision and that the decision was based on the review of the incident via the video referee. If the on-field referee could not make a decision during the game, why would he be valuable in judging the incident at a later time when that judgement was based on video evidence?

Also, the transcript shows that the video ref and on-field ref had the following dialogue.

Liam Moore - Time off, tackle three
Liam Moore - Yeah mate I get you, I’ve asked the question (to Jack Welsby inaudible)
Jack Smith – We’ve had one replay Liam,
Liam Moore - can you watch that again smithy?
Jack Smith – he’s going to ground, he’s going to ground
Jack Smith - Contact on the neck
Jack Smith - Yeah but there’s minimal contact to the head on this Liam

They then went on with the game with tackle 3.

The laws of the game clearly state that misconduct occurs when..

SECTION 15 - PLAYER’S MISCONDUCT

Definition of misconduct

1 (b)When effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

So, there should have been no differentiation between the contact with the head and contact with the neck. Both should have been deemed foul play.

Based on the above, I still don’t understand what value they would have added at the hearing – when the video is all that would have been needed to come to a conclusion.

Edited October 10 by Dunbar

[LeeF]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

A couple of points.

In transcript of the hearing that you posted, it was entirely clear that the referee was not making any decision and that the decision was based on the review of the incident via the video referee. If the on-field referee could not make a decision during the game, why would he be valuable in judging the incident at a later time when that judgement was based on video evidence?

Also, the transcript shows that the video ref and on-field ref had the following dialogue.

Liam Moore - Time off, tackle three
Liam Moore - Yeah mate I get you, I’ve asked the question (to Jack Welsby inaudible)
Jack Smith – We’ve had one replay Liam,
Liam Moore - can you watch that again smithy?
Jack Smith – he’s going to ground, he’s going to ground
Jack Smith - Contact on the neck
Jack Smith - Yeah but there’s minimal contact to the head on this Liam

They then went on with the game with tackle 3.

The laws of the game clearly state that misconduct occurs when..

SECTION 15 - PLAYER’S MISCONDUCT

Definition of misconduct

1 (b)When effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

So, there should have been no differentiation between the contact with the neck and contact with the neck. Both should have been deemed foul play.

Based on the above, I still don’t understand what value they would have added at the hearing – when the video is all that would have been needed to come to a conclusion.

The match officials didn’t attend the hearing 

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance/rules-and-regulations/disciplinary/disciplinary-case?case=19425

Their discussion during the game is referenced 

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, LeeF said:

The match officials didn’t attend the hearing 

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance/rules-and-regulations/disciplinary/disciplinary-case?case=19425

Their discussion during the game is referenced 

ok, I was going on the tweet earlier that said they were in attendance.

[Worzel]

21 minutes ago, LeeF said:

The match officials didn’t attend the hearing 

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance/rules-and-regulations/disciplinary/disciplinary-case?case=19425

Their discussion during the game is referenced 

Later in the notes it confirms that they did 

"Both Match Officials attended the hearing, confirmed their original view that the contact was minimal, and repeated their assessment that the incident did not constitute foul play"

29 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

A couple of points.

In transcript of the hearing that you posted, it was entirely clear that the referee was not making any decision and that the decision was based on the review of the incident via the video referee. If the on-field referee could not make a decision during the game, why would he be valuable in judging the incident at a later time when that judgement was based on video evidence?

Also, the transcript shows that the video ref and on-field ref had the following dialogue.

Liam Moore - Time off, tackle three
Liam Moore - Yeah mate I get you, I’ve asked the question (to Jack Welsby inaudible)
Jack Smith – We’ve had one replay Liam,
Liam Moore - can you watch that again smithy?
Jack Smith – he’s going to ground, he’s going to ground
Jack Smith - Contact on the neck
Jack Smith - Yeah but there’s minimal contact to the head on this Liam

They then went on with the game with tackle 3.

The laws of the game clearly state that misconduct occurs when..

SECTION 15 - PLAYER’S MISCONDUCT

Definition of misconduct

1 (b)When effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

So, there should have been no differentiation between the contact with the head and contact with the neck. Both should have been deemed foul play.

Based on the above, I still don’t understand what value they would have added at the hearing – when the video is all that would have been needed to come to a conclusion.

Earlier in the notes it says that the referree didn't see foul play. Not that he didn't see the incident, but that he didn't see any foul play. He asked the video ref to check, as there was an injury (as he should do). The video ref then confirmed that there wasn't any foul play.

The case rests wholly on the MRP deciding to re-referree an incident that had already been referreed. That isn't their proper role, a key point in the appeals argument, and the appeals committee upheld that it wasn't their role. Their overreach is the issue here, and not for the first time. 

[Dunbar]

27 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Later in the notes it confirms that they did 

"Both Match Officials attended the hearing, confirmed their original view that the contact was minimal, and repeated their assessment that the incident did not constitute foul play"

Earlier in the notes it says that the referree didn't see foul play. Not that he didn't see the incident, but that he didn't see any foul play. He asked the video ref to check, as there was an injury (as he should do). The video ref then confirmed that there wasn't any foul play.

The case rests wholly on the MRP deciding to re-referree an incident that had already been referreed. That isn't their proper role, a key point in the appeals argument, and the appeals committee upheld that it wasn't their role. Their overreach is the issue here, and not for the first time. 

What do you think about the part where the video ref said he hit him in the neck and not the head when by the laws of the game, these are in fact the same misconduct?