So Senior's case was a complete accident, whereas Raynor's was not? Even though the Disciplinary Committee judged that it WAS, and that he DID aim for the ball?

And Senior kicking out like that was not reckless, wheres Raynor swinging like that was?

I don't think you have done anything there other than help prove trhe case for the defence.

Not in a million years was raynor swinging for the ball, despite what the DC said, if that's what they said. Senior's actions weren't reckless, it is an action repeated in every game. As there were players lying over his upper body it was not possible for hime to be aware of where Tomkins was. If his vision hadn't been blocked & he could see Tomkins stood there it should have been a straight red.

If Raynor had aimed for Tomkins' head when he made the tackle he'd have ended up missing him entirely as by the time they connected Tomkins' head was where his arm/the ball had been. If he had put in a swing at his head and missed because Tomkins ducked, I would expect him to be banned even though he didn't actually hit him as that would have been clear intent.

When he starts the tackle Tomkins is upright, when they connect he's diving for the line. Thats why he hits him in the head.

Good to see that Tigs knows precisely what Raynor did and what his motives were, and the DC clearly did not. Maybe he needs to write to them and offer to join the panel, since their judgment -especially the bit "The committee are of the opinion that this incident was a case of the player going to save a try with his arm outstretched to knock the opponents arm or the ball" is so clearly in error?

Your previous post said ball, it never mentioned arm. Nice selective quoting. As I have said numerous times, I have never seen a player swing for a ball & miss by 2 feet. Similarly I have given Raynor the benefit of massive doubt & agreed he was aiming for the arm. Tomkins didn't duck, he completed the same try scoring manoevre virtually every player does when diving for the line. It is the defenders responsibility to accommodate that. Every first on defender is faced with a moving target & has to adjust his tackle to suit. All those on here who has played the game will have been in the same boat. I have been involved in thousands of tackles & can honestly say the only times I belted someone in the face was deliberate.

But Tomkins was diving. Theres an interesting quote from the RFL that says "you had his whole body to aim for" well not really, if Tomkins is diving over the line, what good is it aiming for is legs. Raynor does have a responsibility though to make sure he doesn't clout Tomkins round the head. I can understand why Ganson gave the red card. However i think Raynor has been judged on slow-motion (which always looks worse). We have to remember this was at an immense speed and if Raynor had been slightly lower, he would have hit Tomkins on the shoulder and probably saved a try.

The ban is ridiculous considering what some have got away with (punching after a player scored a try, headbutting a player on the ground). Raynor has an excellent record, pleaded guilty, also had a red card in the game, yet still got the maximum ban!!

Wasn't intentional selective quoting, just a post made in haste. I thought everyone was aware of the particulars of the DC ruling (and I only quoted an extract - the full text is below). I had previously posted that quote from the disciplinary, I thought on this thread but it may have been on the pieboard in response to the collective apoplexy over there.

Reading this ruling, especially the bit "players need to be aware of their responsibilities in terms of the safety of their opponents" I really fail to understand why we see other incidents which seem to meet the same criteria that escape punishment. And that includes smacking a player in the face while on top of him as he scored a try.

Just because every head shot by you was deliberate surely does not mean that that applies to every other player? After all, it was clearly not deemed to apply to Webb, where most observers believed they saw a very deliberate punch in the face?



Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction

The player has played 228 First Class games without ever being sent off. Does not have a reputation as a dirty player.

Aggravating Factors

Potential for serious injury

Mitigating Factors

(none given)

Reasons for Decision

The committee are of the opinion that this incident was a case of the player going to save a try with his arm outstretched to knock the opponents arm or the ball. The game of Rugby League is a high speed sport and players need to be aware of their responsibilities in terms of the safety of their opponents. The committee give the player credit for pleading guilty albeit to a careless strike, not reckless which the committee believe that this incident. The committee note that you missed a large majority of the game but your opponent also did not return to the game which negates this. Given your recent record the committee feel that the only possible outcome should be a 2 match suspension and a £300 fine.

I don't understand this particular part. While I appreciate the action "took out" Tomkins for the entire game, were they not allowed to bring on a sub? So in what way does that possibly negate someone being sent off and missing the entire game without being allowed a replacement?

If for whatever reason Wigan had played the rest of the game with 12 men, then yes it would be negated. But they didn't. While it was inconvenient for them and they were a sub down, it's hardly the same as only being allowed 12 on the park.

I still believe red card was correct (although not the ban), but I don't understand how they think the disadvantage was negated.

Exactly. It is total waknerage, and seems to me almost designed to divert attention away from the issue that he had effectively already served a ban of nearly a match AND in a situation where his team could not replace him. At best disingenuous, at worst deceitful. Unless the DC IS indeed totally thick?

And the offence is supposed to rank for a 1-2 match ban? So you read the wording of the findings, then you read the bit that says effectively "...because he is not a dirty player, because he has a good record, because he pleaded guilty, because he already missed much of a match and because we found it to be accidental, all of which you would expect to be mitigating factors, we are nevertheless going to levy the maximum punishment on him" - well I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. I drew mine some time ago, and well before this incident.

He was, and they did. The decision is now final, and your life will be better if you just accept it.

Thanks for posting it, I had not seen it before, but to be honest I am not that bothered as I thought they got it about right, one match would have satisfied all but Bulls & Pies I think for opposite reasons. I am more bothered about countering hysterical accuations (not from you BTW, your's are non-hysterical) of referee bias & RFL conspiracy against the BUlls. You might be right, but I'll give a good argument in opposition.

I agree with that, he didn't do it properly and hit him in the head hence the (correct) red card. Its you saying he deliberately aimed at the head that I don't agree with. The guy has messed up a tackle at high speed and someone has got hurt.

You missed out Tomkins going in with the knees after somebody scores a try

FA's raising of the previous incidents casts light on the decision that was not clear from the DC report.

I'd say that makes the difference between SOS and one match? Still think two matches was harsh compared with other incidents, and in no way detracts from the wierd logic.

Are they suggesting a "value" of a player to a team?

There is no doubt that Tomkins' quality makes him a highly "valuable" player to have on the team. If he is replaced by a player of lesser "value", then Wigan have been disadvantaged as a result of an opposing player's rule-breaking action.

I'd rather see more cards than the "On report" cop-out, purely for the reason that the team that has been the victim of unfair play doesn't get the advantage they should. If Raynor HADN'T been sent off, we'd still have got the try and goal, still have lost possibly our best player... yet have NO advantage whatsoever from it.

I'm choosing my words carefully here, because obviously there's incidents like O'Loughlin getting his leg twisted under Wilkin a few years back which was just as horrible to see, and whilst I'd love to have seen Wilkin get a million-match ban, I accept accidents happen, and it wasn't anyone's fault the tackle finished like it did. In comparison it was absolutely Raynor's fault that he clubbed Tomkins in the head, deliberate or not.