Dave K. wrote:Think both are a bit harsh, saying that as stupid as Watts was, it was a harmless headbutt and didn't hurt anyone, whilst Pattons could have broke Faraimo jaw, made him go off and will put him out for at least a week.

I've have given Watts 2 and Patton 2/3

The Chin's Back wrote:I was just quoting the wording used on the website that I saw the article on

The Chin's Back wrote:Lets get this decision into perspective
Patton gets a 5 game ban for a head high shot whilst the game was in full motion and he had no real time to pre meditate his actions
Where as Watts deliberately walks up to Crosby and head butts him and only gets a 3 game ban?
Maybe thoughts don't go through Watt's head very quickly but he certainly had time to change his thought process and refrain from Nutting Crosby

Dave K. wrote:Think both are a bit harsh, saying that as stupid as Watts was, it was a harmless headbutt and didn't hurt anyone, whilst Pattons could have broke Faraimo jaw, made him go off and will put him out for at least a week.

I've have given Watts 2 and Patton 2/3

knockersbumpMKII wrote::CRAZY:
2 games for that assault by Patton ... Clueless!

Dave K. wrote:he has a good record

Quote:Dec Patton (Warrington Wolves) was found guilty of a Grade D High Tackle charge in the Betfred Super League fixture against Hull FC on Friday March 2. The player contested the grading level but the tribunal were satisfied that it was the correct grading level. The player has two previous incidents of disciplinary on his record (including striking) and within the guidelines set out, a concussive injury should be an aggravating factor which occurred in this instance. Patton received a five-match suspension and £500 fine.

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:Took me a while, but now I know you are simply trolling.

The fact that Patton recklessly swings his arm into the face of Faraimo already dictates its pre meditated, unless of course Patton had never played the game before and had no idea of the rules regarding head contact.

Factor in that the referee had actually called held and was pointing to Faraimo to go back to his mark (ball carrying arm made contact with the ground), will have meant Faraimo was in a slightly relaxed position. I heard the officials call in the stands, so Patton will have heard it being only yards from the referee.

Factor in the damage caused by Patton resulting in Faraimo being lead from the field and being unavailable for at least one more game due to concussion rules, which was far worse than Watts going forehead to forehead with Crosby.

If Watts had genuinely wanted to injury an opponent with a head butt, he would have butted him on the nose or at least in the face (if you want an example of this I seem to remember an incident between Steve Hampson and Gary Freeman in a GB v NZ game in the late 80's, now that was a head butt).

Fantastic Mr Catpiss wrote:i reckon the clenched fist was more for trying to knock the ball out of his grasp rather than knock him out, bear in mind dec's a fairly small halfback against a bloody big winger. I've seen defence for other offences in the past where they've stated smaller players have tried to be aggressive standing up against opposition forwards, that's had varying degrees of success.

Very interested to read the notes from the comittee

Quote:DEC PATTON - WARRINGTON
HULL FC V WARRINGTON WOLVES - SUPER LEAGUE
RANGE OF RECOMMENDED SANCTIONS IN RELATION TO CHARGED GRADE* :
3-5

DETAILS OF CHARGE / REASON FOR NF :
Rule -15.1 (b) Detail – High Tackle - Intentional – clenched fist – intent to make contact with head Grade - D

DECISION:
Charge

INCIDENT:
High tackle in the 47th minute (Faraimo)

PLEA:
Guilty - Challenging the grading of the offence

SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE CHARGE / EVIDENCE:
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 5th March 2018, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(b) during the above Match. The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 47th minute of the above Match. You were dismissed following the incident. In the Panel’s opinion while attempting to tackle you made contact with the head of your opponent (Bureta Faraimo). The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary and had the potential to cause your opponent injury. In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade D offence (Intentional- clenched fist intent to make contact with the head). In accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the normal suspension range for such offence is 3 – 5 matches.

SUMMARY OF PLAYER'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE CHARGE / EVIDENCE:
The player is challenging the grading of the offence. Head Coach Steve Price representing the player states that it is accepted that the player’s fist is clenched when making the tackle. Mr Price does go onto say however that as pointed out within the still picture provided that Mr Patton’s arm is going down in an attempt to wrap up the ball and his left foot is planted on the ground. There is no intent to injure the player although Mr Price accepts that contact has been made to the head. The player states that he has seen his opponent a break and has gone to lock the ball up and unfortunately has made contact with his opponent’s head. There was certainly no intent to injure. The player states he was unaware of where the ball is when making the tackle as he is coming from slightly behind his opponent.

DECISION:
Guilty

REASON FOR DECISION:
The Tribunal have viewed the footage and are satisfied that the offence has been graded correctly. The Tribunal state that the contact was going upwards before it went downwards and that the player’s feet were off the ground at the point of contact. The Tribunal do not believe that there was an intention to wrap the ball up and the opponent is blindsided when contact is made. The opponent does not at any time stop to break his fall after contact, indicative of losing consciousness. The Tribunal conclude that this was an intentional act under the guidelines.

SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION
The Match Review Panel state that within the guidelines set out, a concussive injury should be an aggravating factor which occurred in this instance.

SUMMARY OF PLAYER'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION
The player is remorseful for his actions and that this was totally out of character. He is a good role model within the game and believes that the incident was not intentional, but will accept the findings of the Tribunal.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS
The player has 2 incidents of disciplinary on his record, including a striking incident.

REASONS FOR DECISION
The Tribunal give the player credit for his show of remorse, plea of guilt and his previous good character, albeit he has an incident of tripping on his record only last year. The Tribunal note however the injury sustained by his opponent, whereby he will have to miss at least one fixture. This was a very serious case of misconduct and even with the player’s show of remorse and plea of guilt, the Tribunal feel that a 5 match suspension is appropriate on this occasion together with a £500 fine.

SUSPENSION
5 matches

FINE
£500