Catalans should be missing a couple the week after too. McIlorum with yet another cowardly shocker.

never rated him. just a thug

Always has been.
Was the same at Queens.

I wouldn’t mind Smith dodging a ban for a world club challenge game if it was in a transparent policy (said before, not all matches are equal in terms of bans).

I’d say he deserves a 1 league match penalty which could have been held over. I’m not even convinced that match bans is the best incentive anyway. We are a semi-struggling sport so what we do is try to take some of our star players out of games for sometimes technical infringements….

Banjo boys are none too pleased https://www.casforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34568

Banjo boys are none too pleased https://www.casforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34568

Sweepstake on how many pages this thread will be by the end of the season. I'll start... 54

Does anyone know who was on the disciplinary panel this week? My guess is Phil Clark , just to keep the family tradition going , maybe Shaun Wane and Willie Isa.

It's the complete inconsistency of it that is the grinding thing. Ese Ese got 10 minutes on the night against HKR, after the game was stopped, the VR has watched multiple angles of it - deemed 10 minutes.

Then last night, Cullen and the committee deem it to be worthy of a further 2 games. Have the undermined the on field officials from Thursday night saying they made the wrong decision? They have come out and said that there are mitigating circumstances for Harry Smith's tackle, were there not also mitgating circumstances for Ligi Sao (having his face raked off) for lashing out?

Luke Yates has posted criticising the RFL on Instagram with plenty of current and ex players mentioning their thoughts too. On what was a great weekend, crowd wise, for the game, it soon turned into negatives again.

Well played Goulding, Fozzard et al.

Its a great shame that after the brilliant atmosphere and general upbeat nature of fans coming into this opening round were already seeing fanbases complaining about corruption at the RFL etc all over social media again.

The beak isnt fit for purpose, theres zero consistency and thats the crux of the argument.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... e-28667136 A Matt Shaw article I know, but still.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... e-28667136 A Matt Shaw article I know, but still.

What worries and annoys me is that the governing body is prepared to stick a middle finger up to all R.L fans and basically say, “we’re gonna cheat, what you gonna do about it ?”
I nearly walked away from the game after the Grand Final of 2022 because of the Morgan Knowles/John Bateman/Rhyse Martin farce. I only just renewed my season ticket on the last day of early bird this season because I find the RFL so loathsome.
Supporters follow the game for pleasure, to get away from the stresses of modern life. They don’t follow it to get angry and upset about the sports governing body being corrupt and immoral.
The RFL drew a line in the sand in October 2022 when they used a loophole in the system to circumvent their own disciplinary procedure, allowing John Bateman to get off basically scot free when he knocked Aidan Sezer out with a dangerous head shot.
Let’s not forget, it robbed us of a main playmaker for the biggest game in Rugby League, The Grand Final. If the R.F.L were prepared to commit such an unethical, immoral act in plain sight, they were damn sure to do it again whenever it suits them.
The only difference between the Bateman situation and the Current Harry Smith shenanigans is that one was immoral/corrupt and one is plain cheating/corrupt.

The fact is the game cannot get insured without these rule changes, apparently only one insurance company was willing to insure the game, and they've essentially doubled the cost of player insurance and demanded changes be made. Added to that are the 100s of legal cases being made against the game from past players resulting in a further potentially massive cost to the game. No insurance means no game. Sure, it's frustrating, but it's undoubtedly the lesser of 2 evils in this case.
At the end of the day, contact with the head has been illegal for decades, but as the initial contact of tackles has gotten higher and slowing down the play the ball has become it's primary focus it's meant more and more contacts are made to the head. I understand it must be frustrating for coaches and players, but they have managed to alter their tackling techniques to accommodate all the wrestling, so I don't see why they can't alter it again to make they tackle legally.

No one will argue with player safety but placing 100% of the onus for due care on the defender and 0% on the attacker is a nonsense. Not consulting with the players, as we're now led to believe is the case, on such a fundamental change is naive and amateurish in the extreme. No players and, to a large degree, no fans also mean no game.

The best thing that could happen (and there's more rumblings of it happening again swirling) is the players pulling their fingers out and organising a proper union.
Yes it will take some investment to set up and there will be doubters, but the only way for players to be heard and have their grievances actioned is to have a strong united front and be properly recognised and represented. The Yates question and Walmsleys column are two prime examples of players feeling aggrieved and represented (if at all) Players are the lifeblood of the game and they need to be listened to.

What's to consult? Either we don't make these changes and the game doesn't get insured, meaning no game. Or, we do what the insurance company has instructed in or order get insured and make sure the game still exists.
The clubs were made aware of the changes ages ago now, and it's not as if the MRP haven't been dishing out bigger bans for the last few years now.