Punishment Should Fit the Crime : Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:40 am  

Punishment Should Fit the Crime I’ll start by nailing my colours well and truly to the mast, I’ve never really liked the on-report system. For me it is an easy cop-out for the weak referee; punishes the player after the event rather than benefitting the team offended against; and is a wholly unsatisfactory way to deal with incidents which incense supporters, rile players, and potentially effect results. It is time we had a re-think and encouraged our referees to be empowered on the pitch and make the decisions to punish the offender’s on-the-spot ensuring that their team pays the penalty for their indiscretions. READ MORE ON THIS STORY...

Punishment Should Fit the Crime I’ll start by nailing my colours well and truly to the mast, I’ve never really liked the on-report system. For me it is an easy cop-out for the weak referee; punishes the player after the event rather than benefitting the team offended against; and is a wholly unsatisfactory way to deal with incidents which incense supporters, rile players, and potentially effect results. It is time we had a re-think and encouraged our referees to be empowered on the pitch and make the decisions to punish the offender’s on-the-spot ensuring that their team pays the penalty for their indiscretions. READ MORE ON THIS STORY...

Re: Punishment Should Fit the Crime : Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:23 am  

Surely the consistency of the RFL Disciplinary Panel should be called into question too.

Gareth Ellis guilty of "Illegal Shoulder Charge" and banned for 2 games after EGP.
Ben Westwood found guilty of using "Illegal Shoulder Charge" but because no contact was made with the head no punishment handed out.

My point is not an anti-Warrington post but the use of the shoulder charge is illegal and both players have used it, why should one player cop a ban and the other not?

Re: Punishment Should Fit the Crime : Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:57 am  

St_Cunningham_no9 wrote:

My point is not an anti-Warrington post but the use of the shoulder charge is illegal and both players have used it, why should one player cop a ban and the other not?

Because one was to the head and one was not. Without contact to the head, a shoulder charge is just a penalty.

Re: Punishment Should Fit the Crime : Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:19 am  

St_Cunningham_no9 wrote:

Surely the consistency of the RFL Disciplinary Panel should be called into question too.

Gareth Ellis guilty of "Illegal Shoulder Charge" and banned for 2 games after EGP.
Ben Westwood found guilty of using "Illegal Shoulder Charge" but because no contact was made with the head no punishment handed out.

My point is not an anti-Warrington post but the use of the shoulder charge is illegal and both players have used it, why should one player cop a ban and the other not?

You have answered your own question in that one connected with the head and the other didn't.

Re: Punishment Should Fit the Crime : Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:19 am  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

You have answered your own question in that one connected with the head and the other didn't.

I kind of did, but I think what i was trying to say that a shoulder charge, whether to the head or not should carry a mandatory ban? say for instance no contact to the head 1 game and any contact to the head 2-3 games (or more dependant on how severe the RFL see it)... they outlawed the use of the shoulder charge but seem reluctant to send out the message of "use it and you will face a ban"

Re: Punishment Should Fit the Crime : Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:26 am  

St_Cunningham_no9 wrote:

I kind of did, but I think what i was trying to say that a shoulder charge, whether to the head or not should carry a mandatory ban? say for instance no contact to the head 1 game and any contact to the head 2-3 games (or more dependant on how severe the RFL see it)... they outlawed the use of the shoulder charge but seem reluctant to send out the message of "use it and you will face a ban"

I have had this conversation a few times and there seems to be an assumption that because the RFL have made shoulder charges illegal, they should automatically lead to a ban. That isn't the case.

High tackles are illegal, being offside is illegal, obstruction is illegal. None of those things carry an automatic suspension so why should shoulder charges be any different? They can't give out suspensions for every offence that falls outside of the rules.

The RFL have never said that shoulder charges mean an automatic ban, they simply said they were now illegal.

Re: Punishment Should Fit the Crime : Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:36 pm  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

I have had this conversation a few times and there seems to be an assumption that because the RFL have made shoulder charges illegal, they should automatically lead to a ban. That isn't the case.

High tackles are illegal, being offside is illegal, obstruction is illegal. None of those things carry an automatic suspension so why should shoulder charges be any different? They can't give out suspensions for every offence that falls outside of the rules.

The RFL have never said that shoulder charges mean an automatic ban, they simply said they were now illegal.

Wasn't the shoulder charge outlawed on grounds of player safety?

Re: Punishment Should Fit the Crime : Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:43 pm  

St_Cunningham_no9 wrote:

Wasn't the shoulder charge outlawed on grounds of player safety?

Yes but that still doesn't mean they have to be banned. High tackles are banned on the grounds of player safety but that isn't an offence that carries an automatic ban.

There seems to be some confusion between something being made illegal and something carrying an automatic ban.

Re: Punishment Should Fit the Crime : Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:01 pm  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

Yes but that still doesn't mean they have to be banned. High tackles are banned on the grounds of player safety but that isn't an offence that carries an automatic ban.

There seems to be some confusion between something being made illegal and something carrying an automatic ban.

But it's a question of intent. A high tackle can be intentional, but 90% of the time are unitentional and just badly timed. A shoulder charge is full of intent to hit big and hard with a higher probability of injury... maybe a ban being mandatory is not the right way to go, but surely an instant yellow/red card should be brandished for it's use and the aggreived team awarded a penalty (like now)... That way the player using the shoulder charge is penalised enough and puts his team mates under the cosh for 10 minutes/remainder of the game (depends which coulour card is brandished) instead of just a penalty being awarded

Re: Punishment Should Fit the Crime : Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:07 pm  

A shoulder charge does not warrant an automatic ban, it warrants a penalty.

A shoulder charge to the head does warrant an automatic ban depending on recklessness. This is set out in the disciplinary laws, I can't be bothered finding it right now, but it is there.