Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Next Test

  1. #1
    Learning All The Songs oldun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    St Helens
    Posts
    2,220
    Rep Power
    20

    Default Next Test

    I see Burgess is OK to play in the next test (No case to answer)lol

  2. #2
    In The West Stand Syd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,558
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    It is against the law to ban people for high tackles. FACT !
    www.steveprescottfoundation.co.uk

    "What the mind believes, the body achieves"

  3. #3
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,358
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Good news for GB then.

  4. #4
    Got A Season Ticket AnonymousSaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    202
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sydney2002
    It is against the law to ban people for high tackles. FACT !
    Only if you play for Wigan ...

    Phil Clarke said it best, "You can hold someone down for too long and get sin-binned, but you can nearly decapitate someone and only get put on report"

  5. #5
    Noooobie
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    21
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Unfortunately it would appear that the only way the RFL are going to take any action regarding High/Dangerous tackles is for someone to be seriously injured and then sue the Individual/Club/Referee/RFL

  6. #6
    In The West Stand Syd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,558
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unionconvert
    Unfortunately it would appear that the only way the RFL are going to take any action regarding High/Dangerous tackles is for someone to be seriously injured and then sue the Individual/Club/Referee/RFL
    Its ok, we have the RFL benevolent fund, they will be able to claim £5 a week due to injury and loss of work through the sport they loved.

    WAKE UP RUGBY LEAGUE...
    www.steveprescottfoundation.co.uk

    "What the mind believes, the body achieves"

  7. #7
    In The West Stand saintgeorge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    eccleston
    Posts
    5,258
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Unless your name is Jon Wilkin

  8. #8
    Mr Turncoat
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saintgeorge
    Unless your name is Jon Wilkin
    or Brent Webb.

  9. #9
    Got A Season Ticket steeplejack-reconstructed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Earlestown
    Posts
    108
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Going to watch it at daft o'clock, down at Charlies Gaff. I've been roped it to help him with some house renovations! Just a couple of electrical fittings to be moved. I I thought that I was coming here for holiday!!!!

  10. #10
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    486
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    perhaps if moi-moi wasn't so handy at going into the tackle with his elbow held throat high every time, the panel may have been a bit more sympathetic dont ya think?

  11. #11
    Moderator Div's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sintellins
    Posts
    11,911
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    The disciplinary committee do not have a shred of credibility left.

  12. #12
    RedVee Admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    LP SW Corner
    Posts
    10,029
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Maybe somebody taking legal action is the future. Didn't Jarrod McCracken sue the NRL after being spear tackled? And didn't that lead to an overhaul of the NRL disciplinary panel?


  13. #13
    Mr Turncoat
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Div
    The disciplinary committee do not have a shred of credibility left.
    To be fair, it wasn't the judiciary who did it. The review panel consisted of Neville Keisha from the NZRL, Abi Ekoku (GB Team Manager) and Stuart Cummings from the RFL. Andrew Chalmers and Malcolm Boyle the All Golds manager were there as observers.

    It was Cummings who had the final say and it was his decision not to call Burgess in.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Meeting
    Excerpt of notes from the meeting of the Match Review Panel at Red Hall, Monday, October 29, 2007.

    In Attendance: Stuart Cummins (RFL) Chair
    Abi Ekoku (Great Britain Manager/Panel Member)
    Neville Kesha (NZRL) Panel Member

    Andrew Chalmers (NZRL) Observer
    Malcolm Boyle (NZRL) Observer

    Stuart Cummins convened the meeting. He advised that there were two “incidents” to look at. One was the alleged use of an elbow by Kiwi prop Fuifui Moimoi, the other an alleged high tackle by Great Britain prop Sam Burgess on Moimoi which referee Tony Archer put on report.

    The allegation against Moimoi was the result of a verbal citing immediately after the match to Match Commissioner Steve Presley. There was no written record of this citing request, nor written confirmation that it occurred before the required deadline which was 10.30am on the day after the match.

    The Burgess Tackle

    This tackle was examined in detail by the panel, both through the television coverage, and through other camera shots, in real time and slow motion.

    Neville Kesha offered the following observation: “Burgess did not miss. He went on with the tackle on the ground and was joined by Morley in doing so. It shows direct contact with the head, and then Burgess following through when on the ground.” Neville produced a doctor’s report on Moimoi.

    Abi Ekoku replied that there was doubt about whether it was direct contact.
    “His arm comes off the top of the ball. His (Burgess’) head goes away from Moimoi’s. It’s a lazy arm which takes Burgess off his feet. They are wrestling on the ground but it is not serious. I don’t think it was premeditated. I don’t think that at any time the referee felt it was an offence requiring ordering off. It was poor technique.”

    Neville Kesha: “I disagree with everything you say. To me, he did not hit the ball first at all.”

    Stuart Cummins then asked Neville how he would grade the tackle.

    Kesha: “Careless”.

    Ekoku: “I agree.”

    Kesha: “But you can’t go around doing that all day.”

    Cummins: “I would actually rule that it was in Burgess’ favour that he didn’t let go of Moimoi.”

    Ekoku: “It was a very minor brush-up off the ball and a lazy arm. It’s not a malicious tackle.”

    Cummins: “Neville if you were refereeing that game, would you have ordered Burgess off?”

    Kesha: “No I wouldn’t.”

    Ekoku: “There are higher stakes and I believe a higher tolerance in Test matches. Last year we saw a fantastic Tri-series between Australia and New Zealand, where the intensity and physicality were much higher than other competition matches, and there was a higher tolerance by the referee. That’s what we want to see at Test level – a higher tolerance level but not foul play.

    “I think because of his (Burgess’) poor technique, it also had an impact on the second tackle. Poor technique left him exposed. I’m not defending his carelessness, but it was not premeditated.”

    Kesha: “Yes but that still does not deal with what happened. The incident needs to be referred (to the judicial panel).”

    Cummins: “A couple of observations. From the doctor’s report Moimoi must have come back on the field. He also took advantage of a free interchange. I heard on the referee’s mike a trainer ask if it was a free interchange and the referee said yes.

    “I wouldn’t have ordered him (Burgess) off. I think we had a really good battle (between Burgess and Moimoi) which is what we saw. My point is that it was at the lower end of the scale – a deliberate high tackle is different altogether. My recommendation is that the referee took the right action.”

    Kesha: “I disagree. I think it needs to go to the judiciary. I am not saying he’s guilty, but for me, I think it should be reviewed by the judiciary.”

    Ekoku: “I agree the integrity of the process and the message is important. What we’re saying is careless, not reckless, not malicious, therefore no further action.”

    Cummins: “My view is that it should not go forward. Neville, I understand you want it to go forward and Abi, you don’t. Because of what I am about to say there should be no further action. It is unfortunate that I am aligned with the RFL. But I am going to be consistent throughout this series and I can assure you that when there is foul play, I will act against it.”

    Kesha: “I must express my disappointment – I know it’s not personal and I will not take it that way.”

    The Moimoi Incident

    The second case was then tabled and several shots were shown of the Moimoi elbow allegation:

    Ekoku: “In terms of being careless, reckless or deliberate, this is more deliberate. When you look at the way he carries, he sees his opponent in front of him and raises his forearm.”

    Chalmers: “Where’s the first point of contact? It’s at the top of the chest.”

    Kesha: “This is the third incident between the two. He’s (Moimoi) having a go at protecting himself.”

    Ekoku: “It’s a challenge which needed to be reviewed here this morning. Fui went with intent into this challenge. If there’s no action taken on this what statement goes out not only to the coaches but both sets of players?”

    Stuart: “My view is that yes, it’s borderline, but where it hits doesn’t warrant dismissal. The referee didn’t see it at the time but saw it on review, and his view was that it was borderline, and the case doesn’t warrant further review. My view is that no further action be taken on that.”

    Discussion then followed during which Stuart commented, the review process “was now out of date”. He said that they needed to look at systems for the World Cup to develop something “more neutral”.

    Abi concluded the meeting by saying “there was nothing in this Test match that was anything other than full-blooded.” Both the English representatives said it would be a great shame if anyone was ruled out of the next Test by the judiciary.

  14. #14
    Mr Turncoat
    Non Members

    Default

    Which prompted this press release from the New Zealanders

    Quote Originally Posted by Press release
    Leeds, England, October 29, 2007 – New Zealand Rugby League chairman Andrew Chalmers says he’s “gobsmacked” no action is to be taken against Great Britain prop Sam Burgess for a high tackle that has left Kiwi front rower Fuifui Moimoi with jaw and neck injuries.

    Moimoi (28 ) is on painkillers after being collared by Burgess (18 ) in Saturday night’s 14-20 first test loss at Galpharm Stadium in Huddersfield.

    The Kiwi prop is expected to play in Saturday’s second test in Hull but couldn’t take part in a field training session with the team today. Since the test, he has also been unable to eat most solid foods.

    But despite the nature of the tackle and its after-effects Burgess, who was put on report by referee Tony Archer, was today cleared for the second test by a three-man match review panel.

    Convened by Rugby Football League employee and former test referee Stuart Cummins, the panel also included Great Britain team manager Abi Ekoku and NZRL board member Neville Kesha, also a former test referee.

    Kesha advocated Burgess’ tackle should be referred to a judicial hearing but he was again out-voted 2-1, as he was last week when considering a high tackle case involving Great Britain front rower Adrian Morley.

    “It’s déjà vu. It was an appalling set-up job to let Morley free last week and this one just leaves me gobsmacked,” said Chalmers, who sat in on today’s hearing as an observer.

    “Great Britain coach Tony Smith invited us to ‘send someone with some weight’ to future hearings. We took his advice. We sent two of the heaviest people we could find – All Golds manager Malcolm Boyle and me – but we were still carved up faster than a pork roast at a hangi.

    “There is absolutely nothing equitable about the system the RFL has in place. They have two sets of rules – one to suit them and one for dealing with us.”

    Immediately after making a “loaded” decision not to refer Burgess’ charge, the Great Britain camp counter-charged Moimoi for allegedly using an elbow with his leading arm when tackled by Burgess in a separate incident late in the match.

    Chalmers said neither he nor anyone involved with the New Zealand camp had been notified in advance that Moimoi would be cited.

    “These people show a flagrant disregard for their own rules, or they just simply opt to use them or discard them as and when it suits them,” he said.

    “The regulations in place require any citing, apart from players put on report or ordered off, to be lodged in writing by 10.30am the day after the test.

    “This wasn’t done in this case. The first we knew of anything to do with a potential charge against Fuifui was when we walked into the RFL’s hearing at Red Hall (RFL headquarters) this morning.

    “Instead the RFL told us a verbal citing was lodged with the match commissioner immediately after the test on Saturday night. But who bothered to let us know? No one. We don’t have a clairvoyant on staff.”

    Chalmers said a report from Kiwi team doctor Simon Mayhew was tabled at the meeting, noting that Moimoi had suffered a whiplash injury from the tackles but this evidence was barely considered.

    “There wasn’t a moment’s hesitation from the home-based parties in dismissing the case against Burgess. They staggeringly said it was in his favour that he didn’t let go of Fuifui,” he said.

    “But once they moved onto Fuifui’s incident, the tone changed completely.

    “Abi (Ekoku) claimed Fuifui ‘went with intent into this challenge’. As an observer I wasn’t entitled to speak but I couldn’t stop myself from pointing out the video clearly showed the contact (by Fuifui’s forearm) was with Burgess’ upper chest.”

    That resulted in the panel dismissing further action against Moimoi but the meeting finished with a discussion about the RFL’s judicial process and the need for updating and greater neutrality.

    “Stuart (Cummins) agreed the process was out of date,” said Chalmers.

    “He said they needed to look at systems for the World Cup to develop something he called more neutral.

    “With this current system in place the numbers will always be stacked against us Kiwis. They seem intent on treating us like a bunch of natives from the colonies.”

  15. #15
    Noooobie
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steeplejack-reconstructed
    Going to watch it at daft o'clock, down at Charlies Gaff. I've been roped it to help him with some house renovations! Just a couple of electrical fittings to be moved. I I thought that I was coming here for holiday!!!!


    and he did a great job lol lol lol lol

  16. #16
    Starting A Programme Collection Saints Alive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    521
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    could it now be time to consider an independant panel to look at incidents from international games?

    surely a panel of french and australians for example would be a better composition rather than a majorty from GB against one from NZ, observers are just that and I would have thought that they would have very little sway in the overall decisions.

  17. #17
    In The West Stand Agent Mulder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,400
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beejay
    could it now be time to consider an independant panel to look at incidents from international games?

    surely a panel of french and australians for example would be a better composition rather than a majorty from GB against one from NZ, observers are just that and I would have thought that they would have very little sway in the overall decisions.


    You would still get complaints even then. Suppose an Aussie was brought up before a panel consisting of GB and NZ. If GB were playing their next game against the Aussies they could be accused of being biased if they voted to ban the player, if you see what I mean. It's a no win situation 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
  •