newgroundb4wakey wrote:Powell has blamed Taylor's tackle "100% for putting Mitch Clarke out of the game for 8 weeks" Also said Taylor's action on McShane was "very naughty"
I would need to see it again (anyone know anywhere where I can?), but as I have already said, if the club thought they were hard done to they would be appealing. The fact that they haven't tells you that they know he is guilty.
I think people often complain about players being done for this sort of thing because they don't understand what is actually happening. If someone gets hit in the head then it's obvious to everyone. If pressure is applied to joints in a tackle, it's often difficult to pick up. But it doesn't make it any less s***house.
Keiththered wrote:.What is reported in HDM is not necessarily correct. In any case if Connor swore at the ref it was not a reasonable appeal and Radford admitted it was made in desperation. You are comparing white with black in your reference to Hill. If he said what you say he said he did not swear at the ref.
I recognise that you are upset about the severity of a three match ban to your only SL standard prop but don't let the situation make you lose your hold on reality.
The point is dissent is dissent. It should be punishable accross the board not just on swear words.
I'd hazard a guess Brough didnt say anything less to what Hill has said yet he has found himself in the bin twice.
Swearing is a ban and dangerous contact is a ban. I dont mind that, I mind bans only applying as and when though.
pmarrow wrote:The point is dissent is dissent. It should be punishable accross the board not just on swear words.
I'd hazard a guess Brough didnt say anything less to what Hill has said yet he has found himself in the bin twice.
Swearing is a ban and dangerous contact is a ban. I dont mind that, I mind bans only applying as and when though.
Dissent is not dissent. There are levels and they are dealt with differently. Mild dissent is often just punished by advancing a penalty by 10 yards. Sometimes there is 10 minutes in the sin bin, a player can be given a red card. As in Connors case a match can be missed.
Previous history can play a part and might be the reason in Brough's case. Also in Connor's as he is always mouthy.
pmarrow wrote:The point is dissent is dissent. It should be punishable accross the board not just on swear words.
I'd hazard a guess Brough didnt say anything less to what Hill has said yet he has found himself in the bin twice.
Swearing is a ban and dangerous contact is a ban. I dont mind that, I mind bans only applying as and when though.
As Keith says, there are different types of dissent. All players are allowed to question a decision that they disagree with so long as they do it respectfully. In fact I encourage it, good communication between the ref and players helps understanding and keeps the game flowing.
Then you get times where a player might say "come on ref you're joking aren't you?" Or words to that effect. There isn't anything particularly disrespectful about it, and certainly nothing offensive, but it could be seen as undermining their authority, and the ref will blow a penalty or tack on an extra 10 metres at their discretion.
Then you get to what Connor allegedly did, swearing at the ref, insulting him, questioning if he is fit to do the job. I would expect a ban for any offence like that.
Then top of the tree is doing what our very own Matty Dawson Jones got sent off for last year. Calling the ref a f****** cheating b******. How many games did he get for that?
The Dentist Wilf wrote:How is the panel put together each week, who decides who is on it, how do you get on it, who advices them, have any of them refereeing qualifications ? Which video are they using? Why isn't the video available with the sentence, so we can all see what they have based their decision on.
Its all closed doors and smoke and mirrors really. Some of that information might be available somewhere, I'm sure it is but to the average fan it needs to be more clear. The RFL don't help either. In 2017 we had a player suspended by a panel that included a match commissioner who was an ex Rovers chairman. I'm sure he's impartial but such unthinking panel selections do tend to send hares running because justice should not just be done but be seen to be done.
Current review panel apparently consists of Paul Dixon, Paul Cullen and Nathan McAvoy. It doesn't answer all the points you've raised but there's some info here on how it works
The Dentist Wilf wrote:How is the panel put together each week, who decides who is on it, how do you get on it, who advices them, have any of them refereeing qualifications ? Which video are they using? Why isn't the video available with the sentence, so we can all see what they have based their decision on.
Its all closed doors and smoke and mirrors really. Some of that information might be available somewhere, I'm sure it is but to the average fan it needs to be more clear. The RFL don't help either. In 2017 we had a player suspended by a panel that included a match commissioner who was an ex Rovers chairman. I'm sure he's impartial but such unthinking panel selections do tend to send hares running because justice should not just be done but be seen to be done.
Current review panel apparently consists of Paul Dixon, Paul Cullen and Nathan McAvoy. It doesn't answer all the points you've raised but there's some info here on how it works
It does not help that the RFL’s website disciplinary pages are not working properly at the moment. You cannot see details of Taylor’s offences, or details of any other cases or use the search facility. Given my usual view of the RFL’s professionalism the IT support team is probably some club chairman’s 12 yr old son.
Joined: Aug 13 2011 Posts: 7194 Location: east east hull
hesslefan wrote:It does not help that the RFL’s website disciplinary pages are not working properly at the moment. You cannot see details of Taylor’s offences, or details of any other cases or use the search facility. Given my usual view of the RFL’s professionalism the IT support team is probably some club chairman’s 12 yr old son.
He’s banned accept it and get over it
einstien said insanity is when a person does the same thing over and over again but expects a different result
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
