Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17146 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
I would guess the obvious difference is that in the other crusher incidents none of the tacklers dropped their entire body weight on the ball carriers head/kneck. I would be quite happy for the massively overrated McIlorum be sine die just for the smug way he goes about his very average business, but I can't say I noticed it during the game, if anyone can post a video link I would be interested.
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.
Joined: May 28 2002 Posts: 7397 Location: Isca Dumnoniorum
The RFL need to recognise that many incidents don't fall into consistent and convenient categories. If anything, this is the problem with the current system - predetermined categories of offence with punishments that do not always fit the severity of the crime. Thus the likes of Chase seemingly get away with murder, whereas the treatment of Bateman seems heavy-handed. More flexibility needs to be introduced - at present the RFL are hiding behind an overly rigid set of guidelines which give only the impression of fairness.
I also think that the rules for high tackles and tackling a player in the air need to be looked at. At the moment a mere touch while a player is in the air or glancing contact above the shoulder is enough to result in a penalty, which ruins the spectacle and seems to run contrary to the otherwise physical nature of the game. At the same time there is still plenty of nasty facial stuff going on in the tackle that still isn't being cleaned up.
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Exeter Rhino wrote:The RFL need to recognise that many incidents don't fall into consistent and convenient categories. If anything, this is the problem with the current system - predetermined categories of offence with punishments that do not always fit the severity of the crime. ...
Where ARE these predetermined categories? Has anybody got a link to them?
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Oh, I've been. I go there regularly. I think you miss my point.
In Bateman's case the details of charge were:
Quote:Law: 15.1(i) Detail: Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of his body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle
That reads like a quote from the relevant part of a rule, regulation, sentencing guideline or some such other. But that wording does not exist anywhere that I have so far found. And it does not exist in those guidelines.
15.1(i) simply states: "Behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game"
My long-standing puzzlement is exactly where does the above wording come from? Unless somebody knows, then I conclude it has been made up.
Highlander wrote:Go to the RFL - disciplinary - on the right is 2010 on-field compliance sentencing guidelines (pdf)
Oh, I've been. I go there regularly. I think you miss my point.
In Bateman's case the details of charge were:
Quote:Law: 15.1(i) Detail: Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of his body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle
That reads like a quote from the relevant part of a rule, regulation, sentencing guideline or some such other. But that wording does not exist anywhere that I have so far found. And it does not exist in those guidelines.
15.1(i) simply states: "Behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game"
My long-standing puzzlement is exactly where does the above wording come from? Unless somebody knows, then I conclude it has been made up.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
It's a quirky system of assessment that deems Rangi Chase deliberately aiming at the jaw of an opponent (with clearly one primary outcome likely) to be a four match ban and Batemans over zealous, stupid neck grapple to be 3. Both for me were at least 6 matches in their relevant contexts. Chase's tackle however was absolutely disgraceful. Had Ryan Bailey, Lima or Josh Perry done something similar, 8 matches plus would be a foregone.
Having a category for charges is one thing, but it is even more clear every incident has a context and given that, Chase's jaw attack - and that exactly what it was, should have been punished with greater severity. I don't care how good he is or his record. Unacceptable.
Bateman meanwhile, similarly needs to get a grip and find the balance between controlled aggression and absolute stupidity.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17146 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
Gurus_Beard wrote:It's a quirky system of assessment that deems Rangi Chase deliberately aiming at the jaw of an opponent (with clearly one primary outcome likely) to be a four match ban and Batemans over zealous, stupid neck grapple to be 3. Both for me were at least 6 matches in their relevant contexts. Chase's tackle however was absolutely disgraceful. Had Ryan Bailey, Lima or Josh Perry done something similar, 8 matches plus would be a foregone.
Having a category for charges is one thing, but it is even more clear every incident has a context and given that, Chase's jaw attack - and that exactly what it was, should have been punished with greater severity. I don't care how good he is or his record. Unacceptable.
Bateman meanwhile, similarly needs to get a grip and find the balance between controlled aggression and absolute stupidity.
I would agree with all of that, except if Chase was deliberate it should have been >8 matches, rest of season would have been justice, but I assume the RFL deemed it not deliberate, just careless/dangerous. As I have said before, possibly the RFL did not have the nerve to judge it deliberate because of the consequences of that decision.
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.
Gurus_Beard wrote: Bateman meanwhile, similarly needs to get a grip and find the balance between controlled aggression and absolute stupidity.
Dont you think that will come with a litle thing called experience? for an 18 year old kid to step up to the best super league have to offer and stand toe to toe with them and prove he wont take a backward step is briliant in my view, he may get a tad over excited but the kid is living his dream of playing for the club he loves, to say he needs to get a grip at 18 year ols in my eyes is a joke if he is still doing things like this in 3-4 years maybe but not now
Gurus_Beard wrote:It's a quirky system of assessment that deems Rangi Chase deliberately aiming at the jaw of an opponent (with clearly one primary outcome likely) to be a four match ban and Batemans over zealous, stupid neck grapple to be 3. Both for me were at least 6 matches in their relevant contexts. Chase's tackle however was absolutely disgraceful. Had Ryan Bailey, Lima or Josh Perry done something similar, 8 matches plus would be a foregone.
Neither Bailey nor Lima nor Perry are the current man of steel wanted by Mcnamara for the exiles matches.
Disclaimer: not that I am suggesting that had any influence over the disciplinary decision. I simply wouldn't say such a thing. Definitely nothing to do with the statement above I am merely point out that they aren't the current man of steel and wanted by Steve McNamara for the exiles matches. No link between the two. Nothin to do with it. The disciplinary made their decision based on the evidence, criteria and using their own judgement nothing else. Definitely nothign to with what I said. Oh no that's clear.
thepimp007 wrote:Dont you think that will come with a litle thing called experience? for an 18 year old kid to step up to the best super league have to offer and stand toe to toe with them and prove he wont take a backward step is briliant in my view, he may get a tad over excited but the kid is living his dream of playing for the club he loves, to say he needs to get a grip at 18 year ols in my eyes is a joke if he is still doing things like this in 3-4 years maybe but not now
Yeah people are getting a bit carried away with this. The lad'll be right don't worry about that.
Users browsing this forum: dddooommm and 50 guests
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
