Re: SL RD 1 | Warrington Wolves (H) : Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:05 am  

Marty Grrrrrrrrrr! wrote:

No.

On another issue and probably a more important point. How the hell did Leeds' medical staff and coaches deem it ok for Fusitua to play on for around 20 minutes when everyone in the stadium could see he had concussion like symptons? He was doubling up, behind play, looked unstable and couldnt hold the ball. It was clear he wasnt right yet they let him stay out there.

In times where we talk about player welfare Leeds need to fully investigate how that happened and ensure it never happens again. Players safety and well being should be the priority above everything.

Leeds should know much better after Rob and Stevie Ward. The medical staff are there to save the players from themselves. Disgusting.

Think Your being very harsh using words like ‘disgusting’. If a player is saying they are ‘ok’ and there’s no neurological or signs of significant neck injury then it’s reasonable to see how things go. Otherwise we’d be pulling players off mid game unnecessarily….

Re: SL RD 1 | Warrington Wolves (H) : Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:23 am  

Got what we deserved, Bentley needs to learn quick, i have my doubts he will, but if anythings going to get the message through to him it will be this start to his leeds career, couldnt of started any worse. His dicipline the second half of last season for Saints was woeful over a stretch of games, pure stupidity.

Re: SL RD 1 | Warrington Wolves (H) : Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:40 am  

Seth wrote:

Does my memory not serve me well or did sin bins ever used to result in a ban? Unless in the circumstance where further information comes to light it seems a contradiction to giving a yellow in the first place 'right I'm giving you 10 minutes now, then you can play out again, but then you need to sit out another 80.' seems bonkers to me?

The NRL went through similar issues early last season. Players getting binned then banned left right and centre. It then settled down as the season went on. We need to box much more cleverly early doors to avoid bans but I do agree it’s madness. It’s also robbing the sport of its stars who are sat on the sidelines for weeks

Re: SL RD 1 | Warrington Wolves (H) : Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:51 am  

Shabino wrote:

If a player is saying they are ‘ok’ and there’s no neurological or signs of significant neck injury then it’s reasonable to see how things go. Otherwise we’d be pulling players off mid game unnecessarily….

The general idea is that the HIA procedure is precautionary. Plenty of players are taken off "unnecessarily". There was plenty signs that Fusitu'a was concussed. Unfortunately Agar's greatest concern seemed to be why someone would pass to him rather than asking why he was on the field at all.

Re: SL RD 1 | Warrington Wolves (H) : Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:11 am  

So the message from the disciplinary panel is: our decisions are final and don't bother appealing. In effect there isn't an appeals system.

Fine, so long as we know that.

I've said it before but the system needs an overhaul IMO. Looking at the incidents, 10 mins sin bin was sufficient for Dwyer (10 mins in a tight game can easily cost you the result). I'd say 2-3 games for Bentley, it was reckless. Maybe they're setting the stall out early in the season to put a marker down and try to prevent more incidents.

It is what it is, we just about have the squad depth to cope at this stage.

Re: SL RD 1 | Warrington Wolves (H) : Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:13 am  

Clearwing wrote:

The general idea is that the HIA procedure is precautionary. Plenty of players are taken off "unnecessarily". There was plenty signs that Fusitu'a was concussed. Unfortunately Agar's greatest concern seemed to be why someone would pass to him rather than asking why he was on the field at all.

Think we need to get out of the blame culture. We lose a tight game. Our squad can’t cope with key injuries and that’s why we’re all a bit frustrated. Blaming our Medical Team/ Doctor isn’t going to achieve anything. Think we just need to hope for some better luck after first 3 games where I think we’ll struggle to register any points…..

Re: SL RD 1 | Warrington Wolves (H) : Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:26 am  

Marty Grrrrrrrrrr! wrote:

Appealing after he pleaded guilty too lol. Yep he got increased to 2 games.

Bentley got what he deserved but the system needs reformed. Holmes didnt deserve 2 matches if Connor only got a 1 game ban. It does feel like the tribunal system is not fit for purpose.

Re: SL RD 1 | Warrington Wolves (H) : Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:59 am  

Shabino wrote:

Think we need to get out of the blame culture. We lose a tight game. Our squad can’t cope with key injuries and that’s why we’re all a bit frustrated. Blaming our Medical Team/ Doctor isn’t going to achieve anything. Think we just need to hope for some better luck after first 3 games where I think we’ll struggle to register any points…..

Dont agree with that, our medical team got it wrong and it needs addressed, everbody else could see he wasnt right, they should be seeing it aswel. Nothing to do with losing a tight result.

Re: SL RD 1 | Warrington Wolves (H) : Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:04 am  

mattsrhinos1978 wrote:

Dont agree with that, our medical team got it wrong and it needs addressed, everbody else could see he wasnt right, they should be seeing it aswel. Nothing to do with losing a tight result.

Sack em? Tell them they don’t know their job ? Who’s gonna tell them (who knows better than them) and how will that go down?
Let’s think realistically about this……

Re: SL RD 1 | Warrington Wolves (H) : Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:16 am  

KaeruJim wrote:

So the message from the disciplinary panel is: our decisions are final and don't bother appealing. In effect there isn't an appeals system.

Fine, so long as we know that.

I've said it before but the system needs an overhaul IMO. Looking at the incidents, 10 mins sin bin was sufficient for Dwyer (10 mins in a tight game can easily cost you the result). I'd say 2-3 games for Bentley, it was reckless. Maybe they're setting the stall out early in the season to put a marker down and try to prevent more incidents.

It is what it is, we just about have the squad depth to cope at this stage.

Agree with most of that, I think a part of the argument from Leeds will have been that they lowered Currie's charge on the basis that Fusitua was dipping when hit and he's served no punishment at all, so why the double standard with Bentley? Widdop was certainly dipping. If that was their argument then it's certainly not frivolous to ask the disciplinary panel to apply the same standards to two headshots in the same game.

As it stands Bentley has essentially received a 5 game ban for a fairly run of the mill head shot and Leeds having the temerity to ask why.

Not a fan of bans being increased on appeal, it's a club decision and I don't understand the logic of making the player suffer. Increase the fines by all means, perhaps have club based disciplinary points that can be applied to appeals deemed frivolous and deduct competition points if they do too many...whatever, but I'm sure in Leeds mind this wasn't a frivolous appeal, they weren't just asking for the sake of asking, so why decide the offence was worse today than it was yesterday?