Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:13 pm  

RLBandit wrote:

I don't read many people 'defending' Ben Flower's actions. There's a difference between defending his actions (which would be ridiculous) and merely suggesting that some of the reactions are foaming-at-the-mouth over the top. Watching a slow-motion replay is massively misleading here. There are two issues - the first concerns hitting a man on the floor. This is very bad. It's wrong. It deserves a long ban. BUT...let's not pretend it's the first time it's ever happened and is the worst incident ever seen in Rugby League, etc. etc. The second is hitting a man who you believe to be unconscious. That is beyond very bad, and you couldn't really argue with a lifetime ban. HOWEVER, nothing in *real time* leads me to believe that Flower *knew* he was hitting an unconscious man. You may disagree, fine, but don't base your guess about Flower's state of mind and decision making process by watching a slow motion replay.

Which is all wholly irrelevant. Just because something may / may not have happened before doesn't make it right. Also, if he did not know he was hitting someone lying on the ground then he was clearly not in control and therefore a very dangerous individual. What he did was outrageous and the police are having to look into it because of the number of complaints they received. The Australian RL press suggest he should be jailed. The Times today gives examples of sportsmen jailed / given suspended sentences for their action. This seems right up there / worse than those. He'll be lucky to escape a sentence in my opinion.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:22 pm  

Grade F charge for Flower http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5848 and a B for Hohaia http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5847

Grade F charge for Flower http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5848 and a B for Hohaia http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5847

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:32 pm  

Its sounds as though Greater Manchester Police are involved are in liason with the Saints Club and RFL.
Saints are holding back to see how the RFL are going to conclude the incident, so I would imagine RFL will have to be careful that it doesn,t go outside the sport into a civil assault matter.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:38 pm  

childofthenorthern wrote: Grade F charge for Flower http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5848 and a B for Hohaia http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5847 First ever Grade F in Rugby League at this level? The RFL have clearly defined this above "violent and aggressive striking" and gone into "Other striking offences". They have freed themselves up of the 8 match limit. Flower could be gone for the entire season.

childofthenorthern wrote: Grade F charge for Flower http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5848 and a B for Hohaia http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5847 First ever Grade F in Rugby League at this level? The RFL have clearly defined this above "violent and aggressive striking" and gone into "Other striking offences". They have freed themselves up of the 8 match limit. Flower could be gone for the entire season.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:45 pm  

Good news. Good to see them take this seriously. It's impact on the sport's image has been massively negative and it needs to be treated with a stern response, which an F will do. A lot of the NRL-based people commenting on it are suggesting it needs to be a season. Can't see the RFL going that far, but he'd have no room to argue.

The Hohaia charge is irrelevant really. That kind of thing happens all the time and there would have been no cards handed out if it had ended there, had Flower not reacted, just a penalty to Wigan.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:45 pm  

I suspect Saints and the RFL will want it to be dealt with outside of the police / courts if they have a choice. So, as has been said I think they will act harshly / in draconian fashion. If it did go to court BF has been quoted as saying there is no defence for his actions or words to that effect. That would make it difficult for him.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:49 pm  

Dally wrote:

I suspect Saints and the RFL will want it to be dealt with outside of the police / courts if they have a choice. So, as has been said I think they will act harshly / in draconian fashion. If it did go to court BF has been quoted as saying there is no defence for his actions or words to that effect. That would make it difficult for him.

It's the CPS he needs to worry about. I've no doubt Hohaia, Saints and the RFL will close ranks and protect the sport. The CPS won't give two hoots about that and will go for him if they believe it warrants it and there is a good chance of prosecution, which there unquestionably is.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:50 pm  

Four mentions for Wigan in the final to add to three in the semi final. They need a team sanction as well to go with the first Grade F.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:53 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Four mentions for Wigan in the final to add to three in the semi final. They need a team sanction as well to go with the first Grade F.

TBF, all the other cases (in the final) have resulted in No Charge.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:56 pm  

Dally wrote:

Which is all wholly irrelevant. Just because something may / may not have happened before doesn't make it right. Also, if he did not know he was hitting someone lying on the ground then he was clearly not in control and therefore a very dangerous individual. What he did was outrageous and the police are having to look into it because of the number of complaints they received. The Australian RL press suggest he should be jailed. The Times today gives examples of sportsmen jailed / given suspended sentences for their action. This seems right up there / worse than those. He'll be lucky to escape a sentence in my opinion.

Never said it "makes it right". Also never said that he didn't know the person was lying on the ground. I just don't believe he had the time to decide he was unconscious and then go and hit him anyway, that's all. Don't confuse a point about how far the hysteria should go or not with an attempt to defend the indefensible. He has no defence. He admits that, and so does pretty much everyone, me included. But that doesn't change my opinion that some of the reaction, *in the context of other things that have happened in the game over the years* amounts to hysteria. I simply do not believe he has hit a man he knew to be unconscious. He may have had reckless disregard for the fact or otherwise, but in that case so have many others who've thrown punches at people on the floor. I'm quite happy to see a long ban in this case and a message from the RFL that *any* punch will result in a ban and an instant sending off, thus getting around the 'state-of-mind' question once and for all. But, where we are now, the bile directed at Flower is OTT. He's done wrong and he'll get punished, but he's not Satan.