More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:00 am  

I see Mr McIllorum gets away with his spear tackle in the derby. Given that only days before they had pulled up and banned a player with a perfect disciplinary record plus another with record in this country for incidents that shouldn't even have been penalties, it shows a remarkable lack of consistency.

RFL Disciplinary wrote:

Player lifts opponent’s legs in the tackle, however is contribution from teammate and opponent lands arms first.

So it's okay to spear tackle someone, provided you get a mate to help you and they put their arms down first. What kind of BS is this? It wasn't the worst tackle in the world, but it was worse than both Wello's and Laffranchi's the previous week, which both resulted in a ban. If you read Wello's report it states he didn't intend to do it, Briers caused the lift and yet still banned him.

Mr Hock also escapes for the on field incidents. Rather bizarrely the disciplinary report states:

RFL Disciplinary wrote:

player makes unnecessary late contact with opponent and first contact is shoulder to head

Then the decision is 'No charge' Utterly bizarre given how late and deliberate it was.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:25 am  

http://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary

http://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:25 am  

Saddened! wrote:

I see Mr McIllorum gets away with his spear tackle in the derby. Given that only days before they had pulled up and banned a player with a perfect disciplinary record plus another with record in this country for incidents that shouldn't even have been penalties, it shows a remarkable lack of consistency.

So it's okay to spear tackle someone, provided you get a mate to help you and they put their arms down first. What kind of BS is this? It wasn't the worst tackle in the world, but it was worse than both Wello's and Laffranchi's the previous week, which both resulted in a ban. If you read Wello's report it states he didn't intend to do it, Briers caused the lift and yet still banned him.

Mr Hock also escapes for the on field incidents. Rather bizarrely the disciplinary report states:

Then the decision is 'No charge' Utterly bizarre given how late and deliberate it was.

Typical pathetic RL disciplinary.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:07 am  

McIllorum also got away with "Contact is made with head after opponent passes ball" on Roby in the 17th minute.

So 2 late tackles and 2 dangerous lifts in the same game by the same 2 Wigan players (including 1 with the longest record in the game), and no further action is deemed necessary.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:22 am  

Hock's on Roby:
"Player lifts opponent but DVD inconclusive as to how opponent lands. MRP - NFA"

It wasn't inconclusive on the DVD I watched!

At least Lance wasn't cited.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:45 am  

RL is an embarassing joke run by incompetent fools. Every week just brings ever more and more proof of the fact. For shame.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:03 pm  

McIlorum has done well to escape a ban. As for Hock, there was nothing in any of those tackles to warrant any interference from the disciplinary as stated in their report.

I'm bemused as to why the swinging arm and subsequent high tackle from Lance on Sam with 5 top go isn't mentioned. I'll just have suck it up and lump it, just like you guy's will over the McIlorum tackle.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:10 pm  

LovesToSpooge wrote:

McIlorum has done well to escape a ban. As for Hock, there was nothing in any of those tackles to warrant any interference from the disciplinary as stated in their report.

I'm bemused as to why the swinging arm and subsequent high tackle from Lance on Sam with 5 top go isn't mentioned. I'll just have suck it up and lump it, just like you guy's will over the McIlorum tackle.

Don't agree with you regards to Hock (as you can see above). I thought his was worse than Wello's the previous week and he is still facing potential trouble for the ball throwing incident, but I agree with you in that I thought both Lance and McIlorum should have got a short ban.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:28 pm  

LovesToSpooge wrote:

McIlorum has done well to escape a ban. As for Hock, there was nothing in any of those tackles to warrant any interference from the disciplinary as stated in their report.

I'm bemused as to why the swinging arm and subsequent high tackle from Lance on Sam with 5 top go isn't mentioned. I'll just have suck it up and lump it, just like you guy's will over the McIlorum tackle.

Rather than sucking it up and lumping it, would it not be better if we just had a system that was transparent and consistent rather than the random approach they take now? It seems incidents are referred at random by some mysterious committee and there is no attempt to be consistent and no reference to previous findings either. A classic example are the spear tackles, the derby ones both worse than Laffranchi's as his barely went past the horizontal and landed the player on his back.

When Wellens was banned last week I said that there would be at least 3 or 4 incidents per game in SL that would be worse over the Easter weekend and I was proved right. The spear tackles, the late hits on Roby and Lance's swinging arm were all more severe incidents, yet none are considered worthy of a ban.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:44 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Rather than sucking it up and lumping it, would it not be better if we just had a system that was transparent and consistent rather than the random approach they take now? It seems incidents are referred at random by some mysterious committee and there is no attempt to be consistent and no reference to previous findings either. A classic example are the spear tackles, the derby ones both worse than Laffranchi's as his barely went past the horizontal and landed the player on his back.

When Wellens was banned last week I said that there would be at least 3 or 4 incidents per game in SL that would be worse over the Easter weekend and I was proved right. The spear tackles, the late hits on Roby and Lance's swinging arm were all more severe incidents, yet none are considered worthy of a ban.

The problem is the variables within every incident. One would have to see the guidelines by which the disciplinary operate off to fully understand why seemingly identical infringements go unpunished. I don't whether that information has been made public, but it would certainly go along way to appeasing the fans and making the whole system more transparent.