Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 43 of 43

Thread: James Bell banned...

  1. #26
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    8,877
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belgian Saint View Post
    We are near the top for penalties, yet we have done fewer tackles than any other team.
    On the other side of the coin Wigoons are at the bottom for receiving yellow cards and next to bottom for conceding penalties. When you have grubs like Isa, Smithies, Partington, Singleton and now Powell that doesn't seem right.

  2. #27
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk fishy3005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    12,157
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belgian Saint View Post
    We are near the top for penalties, yet we have done fewer tackles than any other team.
    That’s because for every 10 tackles Sironen makes 8 of them are across the chin
    screaming in the family corner, scaring the kiddies

  3. #28
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    8,877
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishy3005 View Post
    That’s because for every 10 tackles Sironen makes 8 of them are across the chin
    Maybe, but remember Sean O'Loughlin every 10 tackles he made 10 of them were around the neck. He went up to the disciplinary once for clothes lining a player and because he had a fantastic disciplinary record in his career got off lightly with a short ban.

    There are plenty of players that are tolerated but Sironen is not one of them especially when the ball player is falling to the ground and Sironen can't adjust in time. We are an aggressive team in defence and it doesn't bode well in outcomes when opposition players milk a situation, benefit of the doubt always goes to the victim.

  4. #29
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk fishy3005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    12,157
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    Maybe, but remember Sean O'Loughlin every 10 tackles he made 10 of them were around the neck. He went up to the disciplinary once for clothes lining a player and because he had a fantastic disciplinary record in his career got off lightly with a short ban.

    There are plenty of players that are tolerated but Sironen is not one of them especially when the ball player is falling to the ground and Sironen can't adjust in time. We are an aggressive team in defence and it doesn't bode well in outcomes when opposition players milk a situation, benefit of the doubt always goes to the victim.
    Yeh Stids your point about O’loughlin is bang on. Especially in his early days, late 00’s every one of his tackles was up round the throat yet his record was pretty clean.
    screaming in the family corner, scaring the kiddies

  5. #30
    In The South Stand Saint_Claire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Golborne
    Posts
    4,533
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fonsboy View Post
    This sums up that NRL are a lot more lenient on high tackle's . It seems to me that the South sea highlanders are the most guilty with high tackles & hits when the ball as gone .
    You had me there for a moment, I was thinking I've never even heard of that team, and then it clicked...islanders...good old autocorrect but gave me a giggle

  6. #31
    WARNING! WOLF FAN!

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    404
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saddened! View Post
    Players from other teams definitely get away with things like that. We do not. Whether that's because of incompetence or deliberate bias I don't know. But as it's the RFL it could be either and they wouldn't care either way.
    Good to see you don’t just post rubbish on our forum.

  7. #32
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,339
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfie McWolf View Post
    Good to see you don’t just post rubbish on our forum.
    I don't post rubbish on your forum. You all just see my username and start flapping.

  8. #33
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/they-...ampdown-52160/

    So even Cullen accepts that they're not perfect. Interesting to hear him talk about the three stages though. Whats also interesting is it also articulates to me where the problem is; that the on field referees obviously have a tonne of visibility, and whilst we might not always agree with their decisions theres a clear process pretty much everyone understands. Similarly the "judge and jury" have clear, visible guidelines, and whilst there are some complaints about the "why was this 1 game and that 2 games" - theyre pretty much standard and well understood.

    Its very much the bit in the middle I have an issue with, and Cullen sort of confirms my suspicion. They have 4 people, going through 6 games on Monday.

    a) why have they given themselves the arbitrary deadline of Monday? I don't think there would be any impact if we pushed the whole process back a day, and give the review panel time to not feel rushed.
    b) it doesnt explicitly say it, but it infers that because they only have 4 people, only a single person will review a game, which will naturally lead to inconsistency. By giving an extra day it would allow all 4 of the panel to review all games (or at least more than one) and the issues agreed upon can then be brought forward, which would reduce inconsistency.
    c) More people involved in the Match Review process would lead to better projects around visibility. It would be great to build up a library of offences, at different grades with one of the match review panel talking through why it was picked up and how it got the grading it did. We would still disagree much like we do with the refs, but at least it would feel more transparent then.

  9. #34
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,339
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magic superbeetle View Post
    https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/they-...ampdown-52160/

    So even Cullen accepts that they're not perfect. Interesting to hear him talk about the three stages though. Whats also interesting is it also articulates to me where the problem is; that the on field referees obviously have a tonne of visibility, and whilst we might not always agree with their decisions theres a clear process pretty much everyone understands. Similarly the "judge and jury" have clear, visible guidelines, and whilst there are some complaints about the "why was this 1 game and that 2 games" - theyre pretty much standard and well understood.

    Its very much the bit in the middle I have an issue with, and Cullen sort of confirms my suspicion. They have 4 people, going through 6 games on Monday.

    a) why have they given themselves the arbitrary deadline of Monday? I don't think there would be any impact if we pushed the whole process back a day, and give the review panel time to not feel rushed.
    b) it doesnt explicitly say it, but it infers that because they only have 4 people, only a single person will review a game, which will naturally lead to inconsistency. By giving an extra day it would allow all 4 of the panel to review all games (or at least more than one) and the issues agreed upon can then be brought forward, which would reduce inconsistency.
    c) More people involved in the Match Review process would lead to better projects around visibility. It would be great to build up a library of offences, at different grades with one of the match review panel talking through why it was picked up and how it got the grading it did. We would still disagree much like we do with the refs, but at least it would feel more transparent then.
    This is very interesting. If we assume they are looking at one game each and a couple of them are watching two games, perhaps we're being looked at by the same person more or less every week, hence not getting away with anything at all. Other clubs are given a more random approach and end up with the inconsistency of moving around between people. It'd be fairer if they all watched all the games and they needed 3/4 of them to agree on a charge (With no conferring) for it to be raised. That would cut out some of the nonsense ones we're receiving.

  10. #35
    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 magic superbeetle View Post
    [url]https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/they-are-wrong-match-review-panel-chief-paul-cullen-blasts-ex-super-league-players-complaining-on-foul-play-clampdown-52160/[/url
    a) why have they given themselves the arbitrary deadline of Monday? I don't think there would be any impact if we pushed the whole process back a day, and give the review panel time to not feel rushed.
    The main issue with pushing back the process would be the impact on teams playing on a Thursday given that the outcome of any appeal would only be known on Wednesday afternoon/evening. This would affect final team selection, tactics, the captain’s run etc.

  11. #36
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabasco View Post
    The main issue with pushing back the process would be the impact on teams playing on a Thursday given that the outcome of any appeal would only be known on Wednesday afternoon/evening. This would affect final team selection, tactics, the captain’s run etc.
    But thats true now with having to name 21 man squads and clubs naming banned players on the principle that theyre appealing

  12. #37
    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 magic superbeetle View Post
    But thats true now with having to name 21 man squads and clubs naming banned players on the principle that theyre appealing
    No it’s not because the outcome is known on a Tuesday so a club can finalise its selection before the captain’s run on the Wednesday.

  13. #38
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    Posts
    679
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    They could quite easily start the process earlier by working over the weekend for Thurs/Friday games. There is no excuse for all 4 people on the panel not reviewing every game, independently and the convening on Monday afternoon to compare notes.

  14. #39
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,443
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apollo8 View Post
    They could quite easily start the process earlier by working over the weekend for Thurs/Friday games. There is no excuse for all 4 people on the panel not reviewing every game, independently and the convening on Monday afternoon to compare notes.
    Totally agree with this, it's a completely backwards process and strikes me that they just can't be arsed working weekends.

    We can't strip the disciplinary process back to a bare bones approach just because 4 people only want to work a Monday. If games were reviewed over the weekend and then collectively reviewed for the raised issues on a Monday I would wager we would see a much more consistent process and that's a very very easy fix.

  15. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apollo8 View Post
    They could quite easily start the process earlier by working over the weekend for Thurs/Friday games. There is no excuse for all 4 people on the panel not reviewing every game, independently and the convening on Monday afternoon to compare notes.
    I'd assumed they were reviewed over the weekend, so this comes as a bit of a surprise to me that they don't.

    Then again, it's the RFL, so I shouldn't be surprised.

  16. #41
    Noooobie
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    St Helens
    Posts
    27
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    A video discussing some of the recent bans dished out
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe4g_TCFy9M

  17. #42
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    8,877
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paulburrows View Post
    A video discussing some of the recent bans dished out
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe4g_TCFy9M
    On the Hurrell one Paul Cullen completley ignored the fact that Farrell pushed Hurrell down in the back to add pressure, Farrell then immediately calls out a crusher tackle when in theory he could have manufactured it.

  18. #43
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,189
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    I didn’t realise that they take into account if a player is injured when assessing the seriousness of an offence.

Posting Permissions

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