Tinkerman23 wrote:You've obviously been fortunate enough not to off sampled this countries justice system. People plead guilty everyday to offences, not because their guilty. But to safe a lot of hassle and money, complete joke, innocent until proven guilty no longer applies. Ellis maybe guilty, but the EGP is just the easy option, regardless if hull or ellis think innocent or not
Only one problem with that argument though. On the flip side clubs argue their case all the time, including in the past Hull and Gareth Ellis.
If you are interested in Building Information Modelling (BIM). PM me.
Joined: Sep 23 2008 Posts: 1918 Location: Top of the East Stand
Bal wrote:You've got to be the most condescending person I've ever come across on a forum it's a shame.
Anyway. A EGP is, factually an admission a guilt. I take your point they are used strategically by players, although I would argue that many players each week do argue their case as well. Given the Catalans game is so critically, even if you want to play guess the motive, I'd argue that Ellis knew that there was enough in it for a Grade B careless (keyword) contact to the head and admitted as much to minimise the penalty, if he had felt that there is no way it can be classified as that then he would have argued it, as he has in the past in fact.
He was charged with reckless (which I don't think it was), can a charge be changed to careless?
Joined: Sep 23 2008 Posts: 1918 Location: Top of the East Stand
Bal wrote:Yeah, I noticed that as well. But it's Grade B, whereas "Reckless" is grade C. So I think they have just listed it incorrectly on the website.
Ah OK, didn't realise that. It's a shame to have lost him, but it could have been worse.
Bal wrote:Yeah, I noticed that as well. But it's Grade B, whereas "Reckless" is grade C. So I think they have just listed it incorrectly on the website.
No, Ellis was charged under 15.1(a) which only has references to reckless.
15.1(a) Trips, kicks or strikes another player 15.1(b) When tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent
Bal wrote:Yeah, I noticed that as well. But it's Grade B, whereas "Reckless" is grade C. So I think they have just listed it incorrectly on the website.
No, Ellis was charged under 15.1(a) which only has references to reckless.
15.1(a) Trips, kicks or strikes another player 15.1(b) When tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent
Bizarre. Either way, its a listing mess up by the looks of things, as 15.1a is not for strikes to the head, and Ellis certainly isn't guilty of punching, tripping or head butting.
ccs wrote:No, Ellis was charged under 15.1(a) which only has references to reckless.
15.1(a) Trips, kicks or strikes another player 15.1(b) When tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent
Bizarre. Either way, its a listing mess up by the looks of things, as 15.1a is not for strikes to the head, and Ellis certainly isn't guilty of punching, tripping or head butting.
If you are interested in Building Information Modelling (BIM). PM me.
Kosh wrote:Is this your first experience of the disciplinary process?
Nobody contests a 1-2 match ban if they have an EGP available, no matter how innocent or guilty they may be. The panel are incompetent and biased in equal measure and even if you have overwhelming evidence to prove your innocence they'll most likely have made up their mind before you even present it.
It's a bollox decision, but just another in a long line of bollox decisions made by a panel that hasn't been fit for purpose in decades. If you don't play for one of the favoured clubs you'll always get the $hite end of the stick. If I still got wound up by these jokers I'd have died of apoplexy years ago.
I believe Nick Scruton contested a charge recently when EPG was available and was found not guilty.
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
Bal wrote:You've got to be the most condescending person I've ever come across on a forum it's a shame.
I genuinely wasn't intending to be. It's easy to miss nuances in typed text and I was actually surprised that you didn't seem to be aware of the common usage of an EGP.
Cases get argued by players from the handful of clubs who stand a chance of getting a positive result, or by players who don't have access to an EGP. Nobody else believes for an instant that they'll get justice from the panel so it's all about strategy and damage limitation. Better to miss the Catalan game than risk missing two.
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Joined: Apr 29 2010 Posts: 585 Location: In two minds
Tinkerman23 wrote:You've obviously been fortunate enough not to off sampled this countries justice system. People plead guilty everyday to offences, not because their guilty. But to safe a lot of hassle and money, complete joke, innocent until proven guilty no longer applies. Ellis maybe guilty, but the EGP is just the easy option, regardless if hull or ellis think innocent or not
Well I have sampled it, and conversely many guilty people go free every day. Ellis quite rightly took the EGP because, as Kosh says, the RFL disciplinary are not fit for purpose, and he would most lkely have ended up with two games instead of one.
Large Paws wrote:Well I have sampled it, and conversely many guilty people go free every day. Ellis quite rightly took the EGP because, as Kosh says, the RFL disciplinary are not fit for purpose, and he would most lkely have ended up with two games instead of one.
Like wise, the courts ain't fit for purpose. I was actually agreeing with kosh by the way
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
it's a shame.
