Thanks CLEARWING and TVOC for the clarification................

You are so gonna get sued by him for that comment

Isn't Ropati part time? Does the insurance cover wages from another job other than his players wages?


His upper arm? So not a head clash then? Or Chase's shoulder?

Careful, that in itself is a potentially libellous comment. To repay the favour though Rangi Chase will be putting the case together on behalf of Gronk.

How many actual matches did that ban cover?

The present system is fine but they should add a match or two to each of the tarrifs for foul play, IMO. And chase is a nasty who did something similar to Sinfield last year. You can tell he's a when his mates in an international try and injure him. He'll get his.

I still think the RFL should incorporate more from the NRL system, where players get points for offences, which rather like those on your drivers' licence accumulate. So a player could face a ban for persistent infrigements individually not worth a ban, or find they increase their suspension if they do something worse. Similarly a player who regularly makes head high tackles (as did Morley in the NRL) will quite soon find themselves staring at longer bans than other players. The points would be valid for a rolling 2-year period.

On the penalties for individual offences, I think the RFL really struggles with what might be termed 'extreme' offences, excepting ones not under their control such as drugs bans. In the NRL they have a category of very serious offences (can't remember the name) that don't have the usual rules applied, and are viewed individually - these offences being beyond the range covered by the usual criteria. This enables them to potentially administer much longer bans for what are deemed very serious offences. IMO just like refs sometimes put players on report for what are sending off offences, the judiciary sometimes uses the grading system to hide offences that should be treated differently.

I agree that the RU case cited was one that suited everybody except the injured player. The RFU could claim to be tough, citing '32 weeks', whereas the actual ban in playing terms was far less severe. IIRC I've seen this type of suspension happen in RU over here as well.

BTW do people see it as wrong to take into account the actual damage done by foul play? I don't have a problem with damage being taken into account. Off the field if you punch someone your penalty will vary dependent on the damage done - from nothing through ABH, GBH, manslaughter etc. Why would offences committed on the field not be treated similarly?

I agree BR with regards to the damage done been considered when the punishment is decided.

Playing devil's advocate here - this is not my view but the RFL has also to take into account welfare of the club. If Rhangi Chase was suspended for 8 weeks - the minimum in my view - that would put an end to any hope Castleford have of making the play offs. It would also have a financially detrimental effect on the club as fans would not want to watch a losing side. I would imagine Castleford's finances are not far removed from Bradford's and even a small loss of revenue could be catastrophic.

I see yer point sal but that falls soley at Chase's feet imo he's their "Marquee" and highest paid player so he should have to face some of the financial burden.
It's not the RFL's responsabillity imo to wory about any kind of £££££ implications for the club if their player is banned.

It may not be their job to worry about it, but it could be in the back of their mind. After all, surely the RFL can only afford to prop up a certain number of clubs