: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:51 pm  

Manor Park wrote:

Take the blinkers off Tigerpie. He was told not to use his elbow or he would be banned, he used it again and has been banned. What do you think would be fair, another warning letter? Lets flip this round another way, if a Wakey player had been warned for something a fortnight ago and did the same again and got away scot free you would be saying "there goes the rfl shafting Cas again"

There's only one person to blame and thats Ryan himself.

He was banned for use of the forearm....

Some people don't know their arm from their elbow.

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:52 pm  

Georgie Best on a Bloomer wrote:

He was banned for use of the forearm....

Some people don't know their arm from their elbow.

LOL

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:35 am  

Manor Park wrote:

Take the blinkers off Tigerpie. He was told not to use his elbow or he would be banned, he used it again and has been banned. What do you think would be fair, another warning letter? Lets flip this round another way, if a Wakey player had been warned for something a fortnight ago and did the same again and got away scot free you would be saying "there goes the rfl shafting Cas again"

There's only one person to blame and thats Ryan himself.

Proportional would be a fine, ie the next step up. Then if he did it again a ban. I've seen far worse this season get a fine. Did you see Greenshields attack on young Halley for the Dulls? £300 for taking the lads head off?

These blinkers are staying on old cocker

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:20 am  

Tigerpie wrote:

Proportional would be a fine, ie the next step up. Then if he did it again a ban. I've seen far worse this season get a fine. Did you see Greenshields attack on young Halley for the Dulls? £300 for taking the lads head off?

These blinkers are staying on old cocker

Greenshields was not an "attack" he was simply stepped and it was an automatic reaction to stick his arm out. What Ryan did was deliberately lead with his forearm with the intention of sticking it into an opponents head.

What kind of authority would the RFL have if they used your system of letter then fine then ban? You would have players attacking each other left right and centre knowing they were gonna get away with it twice before been banned.

As I have said before Ryan is completely blame.

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:01 am  

Manor Park wrote:

Greenshields was not an "attack" he was simply stepped and it was an automatic reaction to stick his arm out. What Ryan did was deliberately lead with his forearm with the intention of sticking it into an opponents head.

What kind of authority would the RFL have if they used your system of letter then fine then ban? You would have players attacking each other left right and centre knowing they were gonna get away with it twice before been banned.

As I have said before Ryan is completely blame.

Who mentioned a letter? You are clearly a mind reader too, you have no idea of the intent behind Greenshields attack. Perhaps you can explain to me why Mason got a fine only for running in and punching a Goon ?(sure sign of intent to do harm in my book ) Oh and no ban

We are seeing players punching each other this year with real intent to do damage to the opposition and either being let off or fined-this, in my view is a more serious, yet seems to get less harshly treated?
As for the "system" of punishment, it should escalate in a proportional manner, thats all I ask. Not as you suggest a warning to a ban with fine.

Take speeding for example, 3 points for first offence, then straight to a ban for the next...is this is what you are suggesting

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:22 am  

RFL quote--is this permitted?

"The panel have watched the DVD again and have taken into account your submissions. They are satisfied there was contact during the incident between the two players. The panel feel this started as a handoff but poor technique meant contact ended with the elbow. A player is responsible for his own actions and therefore the allegation is proved. "

Doesn't even mention intent

Good on TM for what he said in trying to defend our man

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:30 am  

-DAZ- wrote:

No drama, we're far from a one man team and we'll comfortably put Wakey to the sword without Goldy.

Goldy's petulance has let himself and the club down.

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:02 pm  

Tigerpie wrote:

Who mentioned a letter? You are clearly a mind reader too, you have no idea of the intent behind Greenshields attack. Perhaps you can explain to me why Mason got a fine only for running in and punching a Goon ?(sure sign of intent to do harm in my book ) Oh and no ban

We are seeing players punching each other this year with real intent to do damage to the opposition and either being let off or fined-this, in my view is a more serious, yet seems to get less harshly treated?
As for the "system" of punishment, it should escalate in a proportional manner, thats all I ask. Not as you suggest a warning to a ban with fine.

Take speeding for example, 3 points for first offence, then straight to a ban for the next...is this is what you are suggesting

Whether the ruling is fair or not to me is not the issue. The issue is he was told not to do it or he would be banned and he did again and was banned.

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:05 pm  

... struck a Keighley player (Presley) on the jaw or to the neck with his forearm

I have to say I'm disappointed with the Disciplinary Committee's dereliction of duty. Not for the sentence so much as the tragically missed opportunity to note that Presley, although not physically injured, was "All Shook Up".

[tb]

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:13 pm  

a-huh-huh!