Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:20 pm  

Totally agree Stan, I have a few good friends who are Cas fans, and they are as bemused about this whole sorry state as we are!

[Mild Rover]

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:33 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

So you think the 3rd man in going low DOESN'T need stamping out of the game? Or do you actually agree with Powell there?

Do you also believe Boudebza needed to perform the leg whip which caused the injury despite him joining the tackle was enough to complete the job before applying the undue pressure?

“That was a bad tackle – that’s got to be out of the game”

Is what Powell said about the tackle, everything after that was that Shenton needs sending for scans.

The wilfully reckless leg whip is your interpretation. But the video evidence is equally consistent with other interpretations, including it being an unfortunate accident. The failure of the panel to entertain this possibility, compounded by the withdrawal of the EGP, going outside the guidelines and Hudgell's allegations means it looks and feels like a stitch up. That is my interpretation.

I want to see fewer players injured, and there might be a case for making an example sometimes - but it has to be a good example, with less ambiguous evidence and more robust process.

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:05 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

The wilfully reckless leg whip is your interpretation. But the video evidence is equally consistent with other interpretations, including it being an unfortunate accident. The failure of the panel to entertain this possibility, compounded by the withdrawal of the EGP, going outside the guidelines and Hudgell's allegations means it looks and feels like a stitch up. That is my interpretation.

I want to see fewer players injured, and there might be a case for making an example sometimes - but it has to be a good example, with less ambiguous evidence and more robust process.

A more robust process.....at the rfl, not when you can......spin spin spin the wheel of justice see how fast the b#stard turns.......this week avoid the 2 matches plus 2 for moral indignation from associate of the victim...oops you hit it...spin again for a free appeal...unlucky no appeal for an offence with a 2 game sentence. Random regrade of sentence means spin again......yep 4 games for a grade b ...early guilty plea.... spin again.....no early guilty plea...unlucky your out of spins. Next week......more spins ( please note Leeds and Wigan get to bring their own wheels known as the justice reform wheel which offers rehabilitation and minor fines for repeat offenders).

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:36 pm  

Grimsby Red wrote:

I'm also going to boycott Castleford away and call on ALL of the Rovers fans to do the same. We can call the boycott off only once Powell has apologized to little John. I suggest the boycott should be continued into next season without an apology.

That seems a bit of an over-reaction. I get why Hudgell is ranting, and I suppose part of that is to bring the players together "back to the wall mentality" but he was a bit OTT in my opinion. Could have toned it down a bit and been more professional

[Mild Rover]

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:52 pm  

hull smallears wrote:

That seems a bit of an over-reaction. I get why Hudgell is ranting, and I suppose part of that is to bring the players together "back to the wall mentality" but he was a bit OTT in my opinion. Could have toned it down a bit and been more professional

If the bit about them inadvertently revealing that they'd pre-judged the appeal is true, then he might as well give 'em both barrels.
It's one thing'knowing' it, another actually seeing it.

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:04 pm  

I very much doubt the panel has been influenced by Powell's comments. As a coach who has just seen his captain suffer a serious injury he believes was caused by an illegal challenge, he has every right to voice his opinion. To think the panel take his, clearly biased, opinion into consideration is ludicrous.
It would be interesting to know if the panel had sight of footage that has not been made public. Both clubs will have filmed the game and this footage may be clearer, hence the certainty of two panels that the tackle was illegal. I personally don't think the Sky footage is conclusive either way and if this is the only footage used by the panel, I think the player has been hard done by.
However, if the other footage is clearer then the ban is fully justified.

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:12 pm  

hull smallears wrote:

That seems a bit of an over-reaction. I get why Hudgell is ranting, and I suppose part of that is to bring the players together "back to the wall mentality" but he was a bit OTT in my opinion. Could have toned it down a bit and been more professional

It was a statement that only a lawyer could write. Strong, measured, passionate and ever so slightly thought provocative. Exactly to be expected from someone who operates in his specific line of legal practice.

Why go soft on the RFL? In these parts we all tell it as it is, non of that PC nonsense.

Somebody needs to rattle the RFL cages and hard, because their incident interpretation, their decision, the length of ban given for it and their subsequent rationale for it smacks of injustice or rough justice. They are looking to send out a signal to the rest of the league, but they have picked the wrong tackle and wrong example against which to do it. Darryl Powell's intervention and Michael Shenton's sad and unfortunate injury influenced and predetermined any initial panel review and subsequent appeal outcome. That's unfair and Neil Hudgell was right along with JP to drive this message home forcefully.

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:14 pm  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

I very much doubt the panel has been influenced by Powell's comments. As a coach who has just seen his captain suffer a serious injury he believes was caused by an illegal challenge, he has every right to voice his opinion. To think the panel take his, clearly biased, opinion into consideration is ludicrous.
It would be interesting to know if the panel had sight of footage that has not been made public. Both clubs will have filmed the game and this footage may be clearer, hence the certainty of two panels that the tackle was illegal. I personally don't think the Sky footage is conclusive either way and if this is the only footage used by the panel, I think the player has been hard done by.
However, if the other footage is clearer then the ban is fully justified.

The only other footage is from the grassy knoll Boudebza was stood on with his rifle.

I'll give you a clue.....there is no other footage...none nothing.....none what so ever.

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:29 pm  

Burtons Forearm wrote:

The only other footage is from the grassy knoll Boudebza was stood on with his rifle.

I'll give you a clue.....there is no other footage...none nothing.....none what so ever.

It's my understanding that Cas film all home and away games independently for video analysis, as do most other clubs.
I have no idea how the panel have found Boudebza guity if not.

Sami Sauiluma : Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:36 pm  

Well it'll be interesting to see how the panel see that tackle on percival