Joined: Sep 15 2014 Posts: 1160 Location: Jack Rabbit Slims
Well I heard that the money raised by the £250 fines funds flights to Oz for the committee so they can check up on the NRL records of Warrington's Aussies to justify bans for them.....allegedly
What gets me about the MRP disciplinary sheet is the lack of explanation around the sentencing. Going back to the week Wire played Catalans - Philbin gets 2 matches plus a fine while Batchelor of KR commits roughly the same offence and gets one match. Both players got the same paragraph of the disciplinary code cut and pasted into the sheet by way of explanation.
Now, I think the difference must come down to mitigating circumstances such as previous good/bad behaviour, nature of the incident etc... but why am I left to guess?
Would it really be too much to expect the members of the panel to explain their decisions fully - a bit like a judge explains his sentencing in a court of law - rather than just doing a bit of cut and paste. Or are the pie and peas going cold by then?
Just saying - as a member of the public who pays to go through the turnstiles (what I believe they now call a consumer of Rugby League), a bit more communication might be nice.
AppleyBridgeWire wrote:What gets me about the MRP disciplinary sheet is the lack of explanation around the sentencing. Going back to the week Wire played Catalans - Philbin gets 2 matches plus a fine while Batchelor of KR commits roughly the same offence and gets one match. Both players got the same paragraph of the disciplinary code cut and pasted into the sheet by way of explanation.
Now, I think the difference must come down to mitigating circumstances such as previous good/bad behaviour, nature of the incident etc... but why am I left to guess?
.
I think the mitigating factors in the case you point out is whether you play saints the next game or in 2 games time. BUT, obviously there is a huge bias against saints in the disciplinary panel. They're still getting favourable treatment, probably because of all the outcry for their players getting treated the same as everyone else for 6 games, or maybe there are bungs being handed out by everyone's favourite uncle
Joined: Feb 10 2012 Posts: 6038 Location: Stuck in 1982
CW8 wrote:I think the mitigating factors in the case you point out is whether you play saints the next game or in 2 games time. BUT, obviously there is a huge bias against saints in the disciplinary panel. They're still getting favourable treatment, probably because of all the outcry for their players getting treated the same as everyone else for 6 games, or maybe there are bungs being handed out by everyone's favourite uncle
CW8 wrote:I think the mitigating factors in the case you point out is whether you play saints the next game or in 2 games time. BUT, obviously there is a huge bias against saints in the disciplinary panel. They're still getting favourable treatment, probably because of all the outcry for their players getting treated the same as everyone else for 6 games, or maybe there are bungs being handed out by everyone's favourite uncle
Sounds like you're saying the disciplinary are acting as a handicap panel. To what end? To create a better televised spectacle? Now that you mention it - Sky pulled the Wakey match three weeks ago and put Wigan-Salford on instead - presumably because they didn't want to show a drubbing. Well if that's what they're doing they well and truly overloaded the topweight last night....
[All of the above was written while wearing a tin-foil hat with knitting needles sticking out of it that I saw a Saints fan drop outside the ground last night]
I'm suprised that we didn't have 2 up before the panel based on the standards they set with Vaughan and Philbin. Kasianos flop and what looked like a drop hip tackle by someone else.
Last year and - I think I'm right in saying - the beginning of this year they were red hot on head high tackles but the last few weeks there have been several that I thought warranted further action but nothing happened.
I think the ref and the panel have a difficult job but whatever can be done to improve the level of consistency would be welcomed.
Maybe the judiciary are happy now we have dropped to 2nd in the table. One of the problems with the game though is consistency with disciplinary & constant rule changes.
fez1 wrote:I'm suprised that we didn't have 2 up before the panel based on the standards they set with Vaughan and Philbin. Kasianos flop and what looked like a drop hip tackle by someone else.
We aren't playing saints next couple of games, we were when vaughan and philbin were cited. Catalans are playing saints next though and they have 2 players banned for their next match. BUT don't forget the disciplinary panel have an agenda against saints.
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
