karetaker wrote:What bothers me about the process is only 1 person watches each game and then decides what goes to the panel. So if you think about all the times people moan about other incidents that are missed then for me there’s your answer.
I can’t see how having 1 person only deciding what goes up in front of the panel and the panel making a decision on level of penalty is acceptable. We can see who the 6 people are we just don’t know which game they watch. For me 3 people should look at each game.
Then if and when a player decides to appeal we have KC and 3 side panel members, sorry could not stop laughing when I saw Adrian Morley’s name on there. But a KC is not cheap no wonder the RFL is potless when paying these people are we scared to police it ourselves.
Next all these rules that we have now and how many that are saying about the difference between here and the NRL it’s simple, our sport is being sued to death by players that played back in the day now looking for a payoff on something we did not know much about as we do now. No ignorance not an excuse but it was what is back then and now the RFL are making all these rules because they just can’t afford more lawsuits.
What difference is there if one ref or one hundred decide what goes to tribunal or not? It is the judiciary that lays down the penalties, and surely there is more than one person sitting on the panel.
Packs Win Games Great Packs Make All Backs Look Class #onceawirealwaysawire
Joined: Apr 09 2010 Posts: 13291 Location: The Moon
ninearches wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if the crusher tackle on Thewlis was missed while the nominated viewer was brewing up.
That’s kind of my point, it should be more than 1 person watching any given match. Not on the same level but has anyone been sat watching a game and said to a friend “Did you just see that then” I know I have and that’s why it bothers me.
karetaker wrote:That’s kind of my point, it should be more than 1 person watching any given match. Not on the same level but has anyone been sat watching a game and said to a friend “Did you just see that then” I know I have and that’s why it bothers me.
The both incidents involving Hughes would've been reviewed in detail, because they were cited, either via a yellow card or on report.
Surprised the crusher didnt result in a charge of some description, even if it was the £250 fine that they throw around like confetti. Can only assume it's because Thewlis' head was released before pressure went onto it. (or at least that is what is deemed to have happened)
As for Vaughan, was always going to be a grade D, I thought it would be reduced to 2 on contesting it. The head contact framework desperately needs rewording. Every tackle is forceful, how do you tackle someone without any force?! Should only get a red and a long ban if it is reckless imo.
LeythIg wrote:The both incidents involving Hughes would've been reviewed in detail, because they were cited, either via a yellow card or on report.
Surprised the crusher didnt result in a charge of some description, even if it was the £250 fine that they throw around like confetti. Can only assume it's because Thewlis' head was released before pressure went onto it. (or at least that is what is deemed to have happened)
As for Vaughan, was always going to be a grade D, I thought it would be reduced to 2 on contesting it. The head contact framework desperately needs rewording. Every tackle is forceful, how do you tackle someone without any force?! Should only get a red and a long ban if it is reckless imo.
Indeed. They always say "it's forceful and dangerous". The concept of an un-forceful contact is clearly nonsense (Newton's 2nd law of motion etc ...... Isaac not Terry). So what is the threshold of "force" and how is judged ?
Joined: Sep 20 2005 Posts: 1097 Location: The Yard
Some people say that "the players need to learn about making these kind of tackles". However, it seems likely to me that Vaughan has made that same type of tackle 100 times this season, and in such situations, where there are so many variables involved - speed, direction, movement, inevitable force, other players in and around the tackle, etc - there is always going to be a certain amount of randomness about where the point of contact ends up being. I don't think there was any malicious intent in the tackle whatsoever, and 99% of the time he'd make the exact same tackle and there would be a different point of contact and no drama. In which case, what is he really supposed to learn from it? Maybe that any upper body tackle now risks a red card, if you get unlucky. Is that really where we want the game to go?
Joined: Apr 14 2005 Posts: 1783 Location: Great Sankey, Warrington.
wire2004 wrote:Paul Cullen. You are a discrace to the sport. You are a absolute bell (finish it off ) you have destroyed this once great sport and you have made rhe sport a laughing stock around the world. You are one of the reasons why this sport is in the state it is in and whether sport is in decline. Fire him immediately and let them play. We put a mural on the wall of the kings head. This man is supposed to be revered by the wire faithful. But is being ridiculed and rightly absolutely lambasted for the shocking way that he and his team are running the disciplinary panel. He has single handedly destroyed his legacy with the actions he is taking in running this disciplinary.
I'm not one to advocate vandalism but I'm surprised nobody has egged that mural yet. The man's a tosspot anyway, shows how petty he is that he was happy to manage our nearest rivals because we sacked him. And he's another armchair philosopher like JJB or Phil Clarke who think they're smarter than the average RL viewer. No mate you're a petty hot head who, if playing by your own rules, would've been banned for most of your average season.
The Speculator wrote:Some people say that "the players need to learn about making these kind of tackles". However, it seems likely to me that Vaughan has made that same type of tackle 100 times this season, and in such situations, where there are so many variables involved - speed, direction, movement, inevitable force, other players in and around the tackle, etc - there is always going to be a certain amount of randomness about where the point of contact ends up being. I don't think there was any malicious intent in the tackle whatsoever, and 99% of the time he'd make the exact same tackle and there would be a different point of contact and no drama. In which case, what is he really supposed to learn from it? Maybe that any upper body tackle now risks a red card, if you get unlucky. Is that really where we want the game to go?
Unfortunately that is where the game is at the moment. They wanted to eliminate upright tackles like that one, to the extent they were looking at the armpit height rule.
Vaughan will have to do more to show that he's bent his knees / back to get his shoulder lower. At some point you are very likely to be travelling to Wigan or KR in a semi final where even a yellow card could prove very costly. Standing as upright as he did will always run the risk of a card of some description.
Would ,for instance ,a text book tackle ,one on one round the legs , be any less dangerous if the tackled players head collides with the ground or a third party boot? The very way human beings are constructed means that the head will never be far away from an opponents shoulder so maybe a major rethink on tackling techniques is needed .
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
