So the "Bailey" ban is now the gold standard for disciplinary rulings is it?

It's working more by luck than judgement.

As for the 'bailey ban' it's not the gold standard. But highlights the foggy ideology of the RFL. Where the brushing of a ref can be 'rewarded' with a heavier ban than a reckless, needless, bit of play.

The Bailey ban was in my eyes ridiculous, although in some ways I don't think he helped himself with his manner during and after the incident. Still, a warning at most for me. It was nothing like the Gareth Hock one a few years back.

Lestrange's ban however has absolutely bugger all to do with the rights and wrongs of Bailey's suspension. 2 games for me is right. It acknowledges the poor technique but also that it was clearly unintentional and that the player showed immediate remorse. As I said earlier, I think inadvertently Hargreaves was just as much to blame.

JP in camp bloodbath it seems.

Tweet:

Jamie Peacock ‏ @JamiePeacock10

Bails gets 3 match's for pushing a ref so he can make a tackle, I nearly break my neck and a 2 match ban is adequate..

Does a player have to end up in a wheelchair before this kind of offence is taken seriously by the disciplinary panel??

Two completely different offences, each with their own grading scale for potential punishments.

Comparing them is pointless.

FWIW I don't believe L'Estrange was being either deliberate or malicious. The ban he's got is about right and sends the message that if you lift a player in the tackle it's your responsibility to see him back down to the ground safely.

Clearly Peacock believes it was deliberate, which is entirely his right. It's not my view, and clearly neither was it the view of the disciplinary panel. If it had been deliberate, I would have expected to see a ban of 5-6 games.

Rugby league is a high impact collision sport, and occasionally players are going to end up in positions that are unsafe and prejudicial to their future health. As a player who has made plenty of contact around the head/neck area of opponents over the last few years, I would have expected JP to take a more pragmatic view.

This has nothing to do with Bailey (or any player) taking an opportunity to push an official (for whatever reason) and then remonstrate with him after the try was scored/awarded. There is no place in rugby for the harrassment of the officials (IMO), this isn't football.

Presumably those that defend Bailey's actions on that occassion believe we should follow the beautiful game's lead?
__________

Lifting an opponents legs to the horizontal is legal and doing so with a shoulder drive dumping the ball carrier on his back is a tackle that doesn't draw a penalty and usually gets the crowd on it's feet.

In this instance both L'Estrange and Hargreaves should share the responsibility for the dangerous tackle on Peacock. L'Estrange for putting him in a dangerous position and Hargreaves for following through. I'd like to believe neither L'Estrange or Hargreaves (or any professional rugby player for that matter) set out to deliberately injure a fellow professional player in this way.

Spear tackles generally it seems to me are most often a combination of momentum - centre of gravity - type situations rather than the deliberate intentions of defenders.

TVOC

That's exactly what I was trying to say-you just put it a lot more eloquently!

I agree with that. I also thought that Heath was the one more at fault.

In the tackle - JP was winning the drive. Bryn had the arms wrapped up and Heath the legs but they were going backwards (losing the tackle). Both players responded by changing their grip slightly. Heath started to provide lift whilst JP got his rt arm out over Bryn's shoulder - presumably to look for the off-load. The direction of force from Bryn was now under JP's rt arm which provided rotation.

Heath is the smaller man and couldn't hold JP's weight above ground so let go & jumped away. Bryn was left the only one holding on - and I assume tried to take as much momentum out of the fall as he could.

Only Bryn knows what happened with the impact with the ground although with him having no further case to answer the RFL would agree that he was not the one at fault.

It's not coached, non of the players think it's an acceptable part of the game, it's always at least a penalty, it's always scrutinised at Red Hall on video if not actually put on report, it's sometimes a card (and possibly red), it's usually a ban if found guilty of a dangerous tackle, it's a hefty ban if there is deliberate intent and if you injure someone permenantly then expect to find yourself in court (if McCracken's case is referenced).

But I guess it's all just luck.

Not at all but if you read the previous posts they compare the two.
In my opinion Bailey was unfairly given 3 games end of.
The posters before me were comparing the relevant bans and I was explaining that the problem I have is that Bailey should not have been given 3 in the first place thus making Lestrange`s ban seem poor.
If it was Tomkins, Wellens or possibly Sinfield doing what Bailey did then IMO they may well have received a warning.
Because it was Bailey maybe they increased their ban.
Didn`t someone else not long after the Bailey incident do the same thing?
How many did they get?
It all boils down to inconsistancy by those at Red Hall.

I have been a victim of a fair few of these and also have been one of the defenders when someone has ended up on their head. I don't think my were intentional. through the problem is that it can happen in an instant. players are coached to left legs in order to get a man on the floor. it only takes one of the others involved to changed their grip or position and a man ends up on his head. its not pretty but to a certain extent its hard to prevent with multiple bodies all trying to move in different ways

The whole disciplinary operation needs a complete overhaul IMO as the panalties that are handed out don't always merit the crime

That spear tackle on JP was one of the most dangerous tackles i have seen for quite a few years, it could have ended his or in fact any players career without a doubt.
Was Lestranges intentions/actions to make that vital tackle only 1 game more serious than Baileys nudge of Silverwood as he wanted to make his defensive contribution?

We need a system that has parity from top to bottom, one that everyone within the game can relate to and at present it's a joke

The ban sends amessage that players need to be careful and take responsibility for dangerous play. It doesn't suggest that the act was deliberate. I think that's fair. I think it was reckless, as have been every other case I've seen in 20+ years watching the professional game. Tends to be people getting carried away trying to win the collision.

If I saw a case where you could be confident that the intention was to tip the player upside down and drive him head first into the ground, then franky the player responsible should never play again at any level. I've never seen it though, and I don't really expect to.

Being a bit of a lightweight in my youth I was picked up and dumped many, many times - I don't think anyone was trying to drive me head first but I've been dropped from space several times.

I also still have the video from the JP semi in '87 and I remember John Basnett tackles Joe Lydon I think, lifts him right over his shoulder upside down and drops him. He'd be seeing a red card now for something like that, at the time it wasn't even commented on.