Quote: Disco "Fair assessment, though I wonder what McDermott's excuse might be.
As it happens I was at rla meetingrl last night where this issue was quite a hot topic. I doubt Ian Millward would have been such a forthright speaker if he suspected that anyone would quote him on a forum the next day, so I won't do that. Instead here's my 'overall impressions'...
I got the overall impression that Rangi was found guilty despite the production of photographic, video and audio evidence which strongly suggested he wasn't. I don't feel comfortable elaborating further, but I did get the overall impression that our coach was just plain shocked at the way this issue blew up and was subsequently handled, particularly with respect to the panel's judgement. I may be very wide of the mark of course, but that's the overall impression I got.
I also got the overall impression that there will be no appeal. Not because there's any acceptance of guilt, but simply because there's absolutely no point. To appeal you should have new evidence, but if the panel isn't going to give the evidence you presented the first time any consideration, then there's just no point bothering to appeal and risk making things worse. That's not a quote, just my overall impression.
What I can say with absolute certainty though is that any residual faith I may have had in the RFL's due process was completely evaporated by the time the meeting closed.'"
Not sure what McDermott actually said that's got your back up. He said he'd like to see it again. To me the way Hardaker fell (regardless of cause) suggested that he was out of it for a moment or so.
I've also, in fairness, yet to see any evidence that Chase isn't guilty of what he was found guilty of. You can see above my view of whetehr I think that what he was found guilty of merits a ban, but the reality is that it's a charge that usually results in one these days. I can't see where the disciplinary have been inconsistent with previous rulings actually.
I would question why bans are handed out when offences are not penalised in the game, but not when they are. That's an odd way of doing things if you ask me, but not inconsistent as it's always done that way. In a more logical system, Peacock would have a one match ban. Personally I'd rather neither incident were banned. But that's not to say the disciplinary is biased or not self-consistent.