Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 83 of 84 FirstFirst ... 336373798081828384 LastLast
Results 2,051 to 2,075 of 2097

Thread: Disciplinary 2023

  1. #2051
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,214
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KentishBarry View Post
    It's a serious issue, and the RFL have to do something about it.
    I don't think they do though. The claims are probably valid, but relate to a bygone time in sport. A time when players were forced to play despite head knocks and symptoms of concussion. A time where players were encouraged to hit players high and weren't even sent off for punching someone in the head.

    Having a well thought out concussion protocol that is kept to consistently, including mandatory bans for players who suffer head injuries, and adequate punishment for dangerous head contact is enough. You don't have to sanitise the sport completely and you don't have to forensically investigate games to pick up 27 possible infringements per game. That's a choice and an unnecessary one. American football doesn't seem to have made any significant changes to it's contact laws since losing it's court cases. Some common sense amendments to remove loopholes and provide protection in some areas where players could be put at unfair risk, but big contacts are still there in the game.

    The scope of the MRP needs to be reeled in. They should only be checking for very serious incidents missed by the on-field officials and grading incidents that led to cards. This Mad-Monday lottery of waiting to see which of the games stars will be removed from the following weekend's game just needs to end. They also need to realign the MRP to the interpretations used by the referee. They generally get the card decisions right, so if it's not a red card it's not worth a ban (Unless they get that completely wrong on the day and the MRP then states that and issues a ban). We had situations last season where teams would get no cards in a game, then lose four players to suspension, which then benefits their next opponent, not the team they committed the indiscretions against. It's a farcical system.

  2. #2052
    In The South Stand KentishBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,730
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saddened! View Post
    I don't think they do though. The claims are probably valid, but relate to a bygone time in sport. A time when players were forced to play despite head knocks and symptoms of concussion. A time where players were encouraged to hit players high and weren't even sent off for punching someone in the head.

    Having a well thought out concussion protocol that is kept to consistently, including mandatory bans for players who suffer head injuries, and adequate punishment for dangerous head contact is enough. You don't have to sanitise the sport completely and you don't have to forensically investigate games to pick up 27 possible infringements per game. That's a choice and an unnecessary one. American football doesn't seem to have made any significant changes to it's contact laws since losing it's court cases. Some common sense amendments to remove loopholes and provide protection in some areas where players could be put at unfair risk, but big contacts are still there in the game.

    The scope of the MRP needs to be reeled in. They should only be checking for very serious incidents missed by the on-field officials and grading incidents that led to cards. This Mad-Monday lottery of waiting to see which of the games stars will be removed from the following weekend's game just needs to end. They also need to realign the MRP to the interpretations used by the referee. They generally get the card decisions right, so if it's not a red card it's not worth a ban (Unless they get that completely wrong on the day and the MRP then states that and issues a ban). We had situations last season where teams would get no cards in a game, then lose four players to suspension, which then benefits their next opponent, not the team they committed the indiscretions against. It's a farcical system.
    I think we agree on most of this. It's just me getting my messages across in a garbled way!
    Perhaps I should have said 'the RFL have had to do something about it'?

  3. #2053
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,214
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KentishBarry View Post
    I think we agree on most of this. It's just me getting my messages across in a garbled way!
    Perhaps I should have said 'the RFL have had to do something about it'?
    Yeah, I'd agree then. They can't go any further or they'll push people away from the game.

  4. #2054
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Oct 2023
    Posts
    484
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saddened! View Post
    I don't think they do though. The claims are probably valid, but relate to a bygone time in sport. A time when players were forced to play despite head knocks and symptoms of concussion. A time where players were encouraged to hit players high and weren't even sent off for punching someone in the head.

    Having a well thought out concussion protocol that is kept to consistently, including mandatory bans for players who suffer head injuries, and adequate punishment for dangerous head contact is enough. You don't have to sanitise the sport completely and you don't have to forensically investigate games to pick up 27 possible infringements per game. That's a choice and an unnecessary one. American football doesn't seem to have made any significant changes to it's contact laws since losing it's court cases. Some common sense amendments to remove loopholes and provide protection in some areas where players could be put at unfair risk, but big contacts are still there in the game.

    The scope of the MRP needs to be reeled in. They should only be checking for very serious incidents missed by the on-field officials and grading incidents that led to cards. This Mad-Monday lottery of waiting to see which of the games stars will be removed from the following weekend's game just needs to end. They also need to realign the MRP to the interpretations used by the referee. They generally get the card decisions right, so if it's not a red card it's not worth a ban (Unless they get that completely wrong on the day and the MRP then states that and issues a ban). We had situations last season where teams would get no cards in a game, then lose four players to suspension, which then benefits their next opponent, not the team they committed the indiscretions against. It's a farcical system.
    Good post. Sensible. The RFL won't implement any of it.

  5. #2055
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sthelens
    Posts
    644
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Wellens fined£2,000 with £1,000 suspended until the end of 2024 (semi final post match comments)

  6. #2056
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    2,584
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by philthompson View Post
    Wellens fined£2,000 with £1,000 suspended until the end of 2024 (semi final post match comments)
    Fined for telling the truth! The fact that such tackles as were mentioned are now banned makes highlighting the issue a punishable offence laughable.

  7. #2057
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    829
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prez View Post
    Fined for telling the truth! The fact that such tackles as were mentioned are now banned makes highlighting the issue a punishable offence laughable.
    Spot on. I wonder if we can appeal.

  8. #2058
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Oct 2023
    Posts
    484
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by knowsleyroaders View Post
    Spot on. I wonder if we can appeal.
    I wouldn't bother.

  9. #2059
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    8,764
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by philthompson View Post
    Wellens fined£2,000 with £1,000 suspended until the end of 2024 (semi final post match comments)
    Wonder why they announced it so late, the RFL have acted on Welloís concern by changing the rules. Then they fine him and made it look very vindictive in the process. Itís a shizer show by the RFL.

  10. #2060
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,172
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    Wonder why they announced it so late, the RFL have acted on Welloís concern by changing the rules. Then they fine him and made it look very vindictive in the process. Itís a shizer show by the RFL.
    I donít think Wello will care. Itís done what it was meant to do and players will be protected.

    You can be right but still get fined for how you go about communicating it - happens all the time in football when people rage about clearly incompetent decisions but get in trouble anyway.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #2061
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    425
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prez View Post
    Fined for telling the truth! The fact that such tackles as were mentioned are now banned makes highlighting the issue a punishable offence laughable.
    Iím gunna put a bet on a Saints player being the first player to get sent off or banned for this type of tackle next year,you can just see it happening lolol

  12. #2062
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    8,764
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BbrookTM View Post
    I’m gunna put a bet on a Saints player being the first player to get sent off or banned for this type of tackle next year,you can just see it happening lolol
    My bet is that the disciplinary will start banning the ball carrier when they go into the tackle towards the head with a raised arm, shoulder or head on head. Favourite for that first player send off and ban will definitely be Walmsley.

  13. #2063
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Oct 2023
    Posts
    484
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    My bet is that the disciplinary will start banning the ball carrier when they go into the tackle towards the head with a raised arm, shoulder or head on head. Favourite for that first player send off and ban will definitely be Walmsley.
    I can see that, what can forwards especially do, when carrying the ball to make metre's? It's a bit different in more broken play but how is a prop supposed to protect themselves first, and the ball second when carrying directly into players looking to knock them into the middle of next week? As usual with the RFL, they'll make a mess of this, it will become ambiguous and largely forgotten by mid season except for the odd token ban when we have a big game the week after.

  14. #2064
    Got A Season Ticket clintsmate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    285
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    My bet is that the disciplinary will start banning the ball carrier when they go into the tackle towards the head with a raised arm, shoulder or head on head . Favourite for that first player send off and ban will definitely be Walmsley.
    Head on head contact , for me, can only mean that the tackler is going in too high in the first place. The ball carrier should not have to worry about making contact with the tackler's head with his own head.

  15. #2065
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,214
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clintsmate View Post
    Head on head contact , for me, can only mean that the tackler is going in too high in the first place. The ball carrier should not have to worry about making contact with the tackler's head with his own head.
    On the line, attacker lowers his angle to dive over the line, defenders now have to just let them score to avoid being sent off for accidentally clashing heads?

    Most head clashes happen following a deflection from the initial tackle. It's going to be farcical next season watching teams lose games because their players have been sent off for accidentally being involved in a head clash. What if the head clash happens at waist height? Red card. Some of the junior referees were even speculating that an accidental head clash between two defenders could mean both are sent off. It seems we're as committed to destroying the sport as Union is.

  16. #2066
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    8,764
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clintsmate View Post
    Head on head contact , for me, can only mean that the tackler is going in too high in the first place. The ball carrier should not have to worry about making contact with the tackler's head with his own head.
    I get the feeling that will change, ball carrier using his head to tacklers head might not be picked up by the ref but the disciplinary will manufacture a charge if the tackler is hurt. We will get all kinds of ambiguous citings anything head related next season.

  17. #2067
    Got A Season Ticket clintsmate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    285
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    I get the feeling that will change, ball carrier using his head to tacklers head might not be picked up by the ref but the disciplinary will manufacture a charge if the tackler is hurt. We will get all kinds of ambiguous citings anything head related next season.
    I suppose my point is that if the tackler's head is low enough, not level with the ball carrier's head, the head contact should not happen. I can't get the picture of Sam Burgess' fractured cheekbone out of my mind, after the head clash with Jammer in the NRL Grand Final some years ago. With the increased scrutiny of concussion injuries now, Jammer's 'technique' of hitting the ball carrier with his head at the same level as the ball carrier and head on, is asking for trouble.
    Having said that, Saddened and Stiddy, I agree that in some circumstances, especially as Saddened pointed out about the ball carrier going for the line, the tackler is on a hiding to nothing.

  18. #2068
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,039
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    Wonder why they announced it so late, the RFL have acted on Wello’s concern by changing the rules. Then they fine him and made it look very vindictive in the process. It’s a shizer show by the RFL.
    Only the RFL. They never fail to you and themselves down.

  19. #2069
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,910
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Its pretty laughable how the RFL have handled all this, makes them look so amateurish.

    They punish Wello for his saying the RFL disciplinary have failed to act on a dangerous tackling technique a week after the RFL change the rules to outlaw the very type of tackle Wello was complaining about.
    You couldn't make it up really could you !!!

  20. #2070
    Learning All The Songs Brian Nazareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2022
    Posts
    1,085
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint Toppy View Post
    Its pretty laughable how the RFL have handled all this, makes them look so amateurish.

    They punish Wello for his saying the RFL disciplinary have failed to act on a dangerous tackling technique a week after the RFL change the rules to outlaw the very type of tackle Wello was complaining about.
    You couldn't make it up really could you !!!

    And said that he should be punished for saying the Asiata and Knowles cases were dealt with very differently.

    Which they were.

    The entire Disciplinary is corrupt.
    He's not the Messiah, he's a naughty boy.

  21. #2071
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Oct 2023
    Posts
    484
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Nazareth View Post
    And said that he should be punished for saying the Asiata and Knowles cases were dealt with very differently.

    Which they were.

    The entire Disciplinary is corrupt.
    It certainly seems that way. They really do themselves no favours either way.


    Didn’t Ian Watson have a charge against him? That’s gone quiet.

  22. #2072
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,039
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaseyJ View Post
    It certainly seems that way. They really do themselves no favours either way.


    Didnít Ian Watson have a charge against him? Thatís gone quiet.
    I remember two of them being fined 2-3 weeks ago. Can't remember which two.

  23. #2073
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    8,764
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belgian Saint View Post
    I remember two of them being fined 2-3 weeks ago. Can't remember which two.
    Paul Rowley And Ian Watson. £4000 amd £500 respectively both verbally attacked the referee in their comments which is far worse. The club should still pressure the RFL/Disciplinary on making an official announcement on why the medical reports were treated differently on the Knowles and Asiati incidents, our club has asked for transparency and clarity for many years now over incidents and been fobbed off with "it will dissapear over time".

    I thought the Rowley and Watson were dealt with fairly quickly whilst the Wellens was allowed to simmer for quite a while, that tells me the RFL have accepted Wellens in truth but wanted to nit pick there way to a fine using the "right channels" argument.

  24. #2074
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,039
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    Paul Rowley And Ian Watson. £4000 amd £500 respectively both verbally attacked the referee in their comments which is far worse. The club should still pressure the RFL/Disciplinary on making an official announcement on why the medical reports were treated differently on the Knowles and Asiati incidents, our club has asked for transparency and clarity for many years now over incidents and been fobbed off with "it will dissapear over time".

    I thought the Rowley and Watson were dealt with fairly quickly whilst the Wellens was allowed to simmer for quite a while, that tells me the RFL have accepted Wellens in truth but wanted to nit pick there way to a fine using the "right channels" argument.
    Everything with the RFL is just so opaque and inconsistent, no one has any idea what their thinking is.

  25. #2075
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Oct 2023
    Posts
    484
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belgian Saint View Post
    Everything with the RFL is just so opaque and inconsistent, no one has any idea what their thinking is.
    They really are an absolute shambles of an organisation. The only organisation I can think of that comes up with this kind of bluff and nonsense as they go along is the Russian government which says it all really.

Posting Permissions

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