Re: SL GF | St Helens (Old Trafford) : Mon Sep 19, 2022 6:22 am
CartHorse1984 wrote:
I think the belief among the Leeds fans is that the team can beat Saints.
The reason this subject is being heavily debated amongst Leeds fans is because we have been crucified by the MRP all season and the punishments haven't been applied across the board.
I would rather see Welsby play because I didn't see any intent but I saw Fusitua banned for the same offence, Sezer banned for a similar offence and Martin banned for something that wasn't anywhere near as bad.
I don't want to see a young kid denied the chance to play in a final but those tackles have been punished all season and let's not forget he left him with facial injuries. There's not really any argument that he shouldn't be banned.
Regardless of this in my opinion anybody who suffers a ban then I think their crimes should have been worthy of a sending off at the time. Players are getting yellow cards or just penalised on televised games and then getting banned. If it's serious enough for a ban it should be serious enough to see red in a game. For serial offenders then yes a ban after a number of offences. If they don't see red in a game how can you issue a ban afterward for 99% of incidents?
The reason this subject is being heavily debated amongst Leeds fans is because we have been crucified by the MRP all season and the punishments haven't been applied across the board.
I would rather see Welsby play because I didn't see any intent but I saw Fusitua banned for the same offence, Sezer banned for a similar offence and Martin banned for something that wasn't anywhere near as bad.
I don't want to see a young kid denied the chance to play in a final but those tackles have been punished all season and let's not forget he left him with facial injuries. There's not really any argument that he shouldn't be banned.
Regardless of this in my opinion anybody who suffers a ban then I think their crimes should have been worthy of a sending off at the time. Players are getting yellow cards or just penalised on televised games and then getting banned. If it's serious enough for a ban it should be serious enough to see red in a game. For serial offenders then yes a ban after a number of offences. If they don't see red in a game how can you issue a ban afterward for 99% of incidents?
The slight difference in both the Fussy and the Sezer bans is that both were fractionally late. The player no longer had the ball when impact occurred. Welsby timed it perfectly. It's just a question of whether the unintentional impact to the head is deemed reckless? I don't know if he has any form in this regard, but I suspect not and for that reason I think he'll avoid a ban. The Martin verdicts were both so plainly ridiculous that when measured against them any other borderline act feels like a ban. Do we really want the game to use them as the benchmark though?