Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 39 of 39

Thread: Hardaker

  1. #26
    In The South Stand Tabasco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Rivington Road, St Helens
    Posts
    2,903
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by southernsaint7 View Post
    Didn't Lam mean that the dumb action to get the red card was unacceptable?
    That’s how I read it.

  2. #27
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,297
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Hardaker is a reprehensible individual. I would find it difficult to support him if he played for my club. He is an all round bad egg.

    Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk

  3. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,105
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Full of it on Twitter, thicko. He really suits the rent boys ethos.

  4. #29
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Shouting in the South Stand
    Posts
    696
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glasgowsaint View Post
    Hardaker is a reprehensible individual. I would find it difficult to support him if he played for my club. He is an all round bad egg.

    Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk
    I agree & feel the same about Ratboy, excellent player but someone I could not support if he was at Saints, not that he ever will be thank goodness.

  5. #30
    Learning All The Songs roy litherland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Moss Bank
    Posts
    1,986
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2112_Saint View Post
    I agree & feel the same about Ratboy, excellent player but someone I could not support if he was at Saints, not that he ever will be thank goodness.
    Both 'bad un's' 2112 unfortunately in our fabulous sport.
    roy litherland it's happened i told you it would

  6. #31
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    514
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfie McWolf View Post
    Far be it from me to defend Hardaker or Wigan but the headbutt was more of a head push. It as stupid it deserved a red and 2 matches seems about right. I’m surprised Bateman didn’t get anything for hurling the ball at an opposition player. J Tomkins’ actions were significant blows to the head which is the difference I think. Ha

    It was a head butt but I agree with you not a great deal in it, I did laugh at Joel giving him a clip and hardaker soiling his breeches


    With his track record he should have gone a longer ban but in the grand scheme of things it really wasn't all that much tbh

  7. #32
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,174
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    4matches for Joel Tomkins. No matter what he does, Hardaker seems to get the benefit from the disciplinary. Other players have their record count either for or against them.

  8. #33
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,425
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    I suppose you could argue it was a very crap headbutt, more of a move forward with the head which didn't really connect properly. But just because he didn't execute it properly shouldn't mean he gets off lightly, and doing it really late in the game indicates to me that he'd been lining it up and did it when he assumed he'd get away with it. There's always the thought that on the field the one doing the retaliating gets done more than the perpetrator because everyone's eyes are on the scene after the initial incident, but for it to then be confirmed by the Panel is ludicrous really. If someone tries to headbutt your mate you thump him. When the one in the firing line is your brother, even more so.

    If you don't want players taking care of their own business on the field you need to give them a reason to trust that the game will take care of it for them in the form of suitable punishments. This ruling means that players are not going to step back when something like happens because they'll know hardly anything will happen, so swing away while you can because the RFL will do nothing to stamp it out.

  9. #34
    WARNING! WOLF FAN!

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    401
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    I suppose you could argue it was a very crap headbutt, more of a move forward with the head which didn't really connect properly. But just because he didn't execute it properly shouldn't mean he gets off lightly, and doing it really late in the game indicates to me that he'd been lining it up and did it when he assumed he'd get away with it. There's always the thought that on the field the one doing the retaliating gets done more than the perpetrator because everyone's eyes are on the scene after the initial incident, but for it to then be confirmed by the Panel is ludicrous really. If someone tries to headbutt your mate you thump him. When the one in the firing line is your brother, even more so.

    If you don't want players taking care of their own business on the field you need to give them a reason to trust that the game will take care of it for them in the form of suitable punishments. This ruling means that players are not going to step back when something like happens because they'll know hardly anything will happen, so swing away while you can because the RFL will do nothing to stamp it out.
    You give Hardaker far more credit than I would if you think there was ANY thought process involved.
    The punishment was appropriate based on level of risk. By which I mean if he hah pulled his head right back and gone for a full blooded headbutt but due to whatever only dealt a glancing blow then 5+ ban. What he did was never going to result in much more than embarrassment (and a well deserved slap from Tomkins). Tomkins problem was they were deliberate, full on punches to the head with potential to cause concussion.
    This is only my reading of it, I don’t like either player so am certainly not defending anyone’s actions.

  10. #35
    In The South Stand The.Reverand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    3,210
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfie McWolf View Post
    Far be it from me to defend Hardaker or Wigan but the headbutt was more of a head push. It as stupid it deserved a red and 2 matches seems about right. I’m surprised Bateman didn’t get anything for hurling the ball at an opposition player. J Tomkins’ actions were significant blows to the head which is the difference I think. Ha
    That’s what I hate about these things, it’s very much based on the outcome and not the intent. If he had broke Tomkins nose or similar the ban would have been likely 6 games, but because he did no damage he’s just a silly sausage. That’s not how it should be and it’s systems like that, that is the start of players rolling around trying to make things look worse. Watching football makes me puke with those shenanigans.

  11. #36
    WARNING! WOLF FAN!

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    401
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The.Reverand View Post
    That’s what I hate about these things, it’s very much based on the outcome and not the intent. If he had broke Tomkins nose or similar the ban would have been likely 6 games, but because he did no damage he’s just a silly sausage. That’s not how it should be and it’s systems like that, that is the start of players rolling around trying to make things look worse. Watching football makes me puke with those shenanigans.
    I see it slightly differently, if he had pulled his head right back and gone for a “full on” headbutt, even if he had missed or dealt a glancing blow then I think he would have got a much sterner ban. My reasoning is that there would have been intent and the capacity to inflict serious injury. In the actual case the chance of any injury, let alone serious injury was slim to non existent. It was petulant not dangerous.

  12. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JB1973 View Post
    It was a head butt but I agree with you not a great deal in it, I did laugh at Joel giving him a clip and hardaker soiling his breeches


    With his track record he should have gone a longer ban but in the grand scheme of things it really wasn't all that much tbh
    I actually thought his punches were crap (not that I'd fancy taking one), he's a massive bloke and it's a pity he didn't at least land one on that horror.

  13. #38
    In The West Stand Ralph Fridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Around
    Posts
    5,517
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Dave View Post
    I actually thought his punches were crap (not that I'd fancy taking one), he's a massive bloke and it's a pity he didn't at least land one on that horror.
    He wasn't exactly making much headway was he?

  14. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph Fridge View Post
    He wasn't exactly making much headway was he?
    Put it this way, I don't think we'll see him one of those boxing comps like Scully did.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •