Summerising of the hearing

The committee are of the opinion that this type of technique that the player has used is dangerous and has the potential for serious injury. The committee note that there is not a clear guilty plea however the club do admit that the player has been placed in a vulnerable position so credit is given in that regard. The player does not have a great disciplinary record for someone of a young age however the committee feel that a 3 match suspension and a £300 fine is appropriate.

Your club acknowledge its dangerous so why cant you guys

If you look at the Bateman tackle in total isolation, it is a bad one and at the time I was expecting Child to take action. I thought it was dangerous and unnneccesary.

The problem is that the way Rl is officiated is not clear and sometimes when it is clear it is ridiculous.

How can being the third person from your team in 10 minutes to be offside warrant a 10 minute sin bin, yet committing a high tackle or running in to a fight simply gets a penalty?

The question of intent simply masks the issue. Intent cannot normally be proven for on field incidents, unless there is an admission.

If it had been done to one of ours, we'd be crying out like the wire fans are!

someone needs to have a wordwith JOhn!

Not surprised with the verdict.

Bateman's going to have start playing touch and pass in future the way he keeps getting targetted by the officials.

This just made me laugh it is controlled aggression he needs westwood has learnt this so has morley

Bring back the biff!

Exactly! they learnt and so will john, all these people saying he needs to be sorted, and on other forums saying he needs to change his attitude is absurd he is an 18 year old kid playing for the club he loves and wants to make an impression maybe he is a touch over eager at the moment but it took them two a hell of a lot longer to calm down than it will john, with experience and maturity it will sort itself out.

I wouldn't. I would be like all the Wire fans were at the time. Oblivious to any offence.

didn't seem like much at the time.. but when you watch it back you can clearly see that its a crusher tackle.. im sure the lad didnt mean to cause injury with it.. and its probably down to poor technique rather than malice.

But the rules are the rules for a reason... its those types of tackles which could lead to a broken neck.... if a warrington player would have done that i would have no qualms whatsoever with a 3 match ban.

I thought Jeffries was more at fault for grabbing the back of his head/neck in the tackle.

Anyway it's done now, so let's hope the 9 fit/not banned players we have left will do the business next weekend. I would play the cleaners in the pack, and move Koppy to FB and Burgess on the wing outside Manu. Then I'd close a couple of turnstiles at 3pm sharp and them old lads can go on the bench. They could have their kit on under their coats.

Jeffries and Kearney at prop - London Broncos/Harlequins/Fulham* - * delete as applicable - don't realise what is going on till half time by which time they are 50 points down.

That is one thing you can always say with certainty about the Bulls - we never do things the easy way!

as i have said previously there is no intent it is just poor technique, which needs to be drilled out of him now before it becomes a habbit. At the end of the day he is only 18 and young enough to learn and i am sure he will gain more out of being punished for it than just letting it slide.

Whatever.....

This is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on here.

Have a word with yourself mate!!!
The difference is clear...bateman was completing a tackle( I agree it "could" have been worse than it actually was )..But Chris Bridge Intentionally struck an opposing player with the elbow, 1 game ban to batemans 3 games...Joke!!!