|
FORUMS > The Virtual Terrace > The RFL colours are cherry and white! |
![](images/sitelogos/2022-2.jpg) |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 333 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2012 | Oct 2012 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| TBF didn't the RFL once dock Wigan 4 points for 'breaking the salary cap' even though they didn't actually 'break' it?
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 5480 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2021 | Oct 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
187.jpg [img:2penstlp]http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5994/saints7sk.gif[/img:2penstlp]
"...the biggest boor, the most opinionated pompous bigot that frequents these
boards and he is NOT to be taken at all seriously. ":187.jpg |
|
| A silly article. Tomkins let-off is truly awful, as you won't get many clearer incidents - he kicked the tackled man. The ref saw it, the players saw it, 10,000 people in the ground saw it and tens of thousands more viewers saw it. It should have resulted in a ban, but didn't. That's in-keeping with a long line of strange decisions from the disciplinary committee concerning Wigan players. Quins fans will recall a decision 5 or 6 years ago when a pie (Paul Johnson ?) launched a flying Cantona-style karate kick at a Quins player, only to emerge from the disiplinary with the message that he had been trying to effect the tackle legally. I'm sure we all have our favourites.
However, Leeds fans undermine their case if they deny any offences their own side committed. Buderus deserve his ban. It was a clear and deliberate spear tackle, and he should have been sent off in the game, as well as suspended afterwards. To suggest otherwise is merely to undermine the case against Tomkins by suggesting that all alleged offences are merely sour grapes on the part of the opponents' fans.
By the way, does anyone actually know who sits on the RFL disciplinary committee ?
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Board Member | 31082 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2002 | 22 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2019 | Sep 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| The Wigan board?
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 4142 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2004 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2017 | May 2017 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: Roy Haggerty "A silly article. Tomkins let-off is truly awful, as you won't get many clearer incidents - he kicked the tackled man. The ref saw it, the players saw it, 10,000 people in the ground saw it and tens of thousands more viewers saw it. It should have resulted in a ban, but didn't. That's in-keeping with a long line of strange decisions from the disciplinary committee concerning Wigan players. Quins fans will recall a decision 5 or 6 years ago when a pie (Paul Johnson ?) launched a flying Cantona-style karate kick at a Quins player, only to emerge from the disiplinary with the message that he had been trying to effect the tackle legally. I'm sure we all have our favourites.
However, Leeds fans undermine their case if they deny any offences their own side committed. Buderus deserve his ban. It was a clear and deliberate spear tackle, and he should have been sent off in the game, as well as suspended afterwards. To suggest otherwise is merely to undermine the case against Tomkins by suggesting that all alleged offences are merely sour grapes on the part of the opponents' fans.
By the way, does anyone actually know who sits on the RFL disciplinary committee ?'"
2 ex-Wigan board members/ coaches.
| | | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 3813 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jun 2008 | 16 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Mar 2020 | Feb 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: Roy Haggerty "A silly article. Tomkins let-off is truly awful, as you won't get many clearer incidents - he kicked the tackled man. The ref saw it, the players saw it, 10,000 people in the ground saw it and tens of thousands more viewers saw it. It should have resulted in a ban, but didn't. That's in-keeping with a long line of strange decisions from the disciplinary committee concerning Wigan players. Quins fans will recall a decision 5 or 6 years ago when a pie (Paul Johnson ?) launched a flying Cantona-style karate kick at a Quins player, only to emerge from the disiplinary with the message that he had been trying to effect the tackle legally. I'm sure we all have our favourites.
However, Leeds fans undermine their case if they deny any offences their own side committed. Buderus deserve his ban. It was a clear and deliberate spear tackle, and he should have been sent off in the game, as well as suspended afterwards. To suggest otherwise is merely to undermine the case against Tomkins by suggesting that all alleged offences are merely sour grapes on the part of the opponents' fans.
By the way, does anyone actually know who sits on the RFL disciplinary committee ?'"
Colin Clarke and Alan McInnes were two of this week's three man disciplinary committee (which presumably had responsibility for deciding on the Tomkins incident too). I don't know who the third member was, and the RFL haven't published the current rota, but it does mean two-thirds of the panel are ex-Wigan coaches, one of whom is Phil Clarke's dad.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7343 | ![](images/sitelogos/fullsize/27.png) |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2004 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | May 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
10025.jpg For contributions, remittances, payments, and all other matters of any responsibility, please refer to someone else.
“The British people love a good hero and a good hate”
Lord Northcliffe:10025.jpg |
|
| Quote: Roy Haggerty "A silly article. Tomkins let-off is truly awful, as you won't get many clearer incidents - he kicked the tackled man. The ref saw it, the players saw it, 10,000 people in the ground saw it and tens of thousands more viewers saw it. It should have resulted in a ban, but didn't. That's in-keeping with a long line of strange decisions from the disciplinary committee concerning Wigan players. Quins fans will recall a decision 5 or 6 years ago when a pie (Paul Johnson ?) launched a flying Cantona-style karate kick at a Quins player, only to emerge from the disiplinary with the message that he had been trying to effect the tackle legally. '"
It was Martin Aspinwall on Jon Wells, it was so high it struck him in the torso. I believe the initial response from the RFL was that there was a lack of evidence, unfortunately this just led to ridicule of the RFL when it was pointed out that the game was televised by Sky and the indcident was clearly captured on VCR's up and down the land, after that the RFL changed its mind and admitted it could now see what everyone else could, but there was no punishment (I think there may have been a letter about poor technique).
Sad thing is nobody at all is really surprised by how absurdly inconsistent the disciplinary system is, in some cases like the above it’s nothing short of bizarre. It seems that the RFL is reluctant to move to a more open and independent disciplinary system which would acknowledge all the blatant incidents that currently seem to fall down the back of the sofa when they review these things. But then a better system would almost certainly remove some of the discretionary power the RFL has over its competitions.
| | |
![](images/sitelogos/2022-2.jpg) | |
![](images/sitelogos/2022-2.jpg) |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2024 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
3.81298828125:5
|
|
POSTS | ONLINE | REGISTRATIONS | RECORD | 19.6M | 3,293 ↓-64 | 80,085 | 14,103 |
| LOGIN HERE or REGISTER for more features!.
When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
|
RLFANS Match Centre ![](images/on.png)
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1 | | PLD | F | A | DIFF | PTS |
Wigan |
16 |
443 |
182 |
261 |
28 |
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Warrington |
17 |
436 |
231 |
205 |
24 |
St.Helens |
17 |
441 |
186 |
255 |
22 |
Hull KR |
16 |
397 |
217 |
180 |
22 |
Salford |
16 |
317 |
308 |
9 |
22 |
Catalans |
16 |
304 |
234 |
70 |
20 |
|
Leeds |
17 |
309 |
316 |
-7 |
18 |
Huddersfield |
16 |
298 |
365 |
-67 |
12 |
Leigh |
15 |
270 |
250 |
20 |
11 |
Castleford |
17 |
280 |
455 |
-175 |
11 |
Hull FC |
16 |
218 |
496 |
-278 |
4 |
LondonB |
17 |
176 |
649 |
-473 |
2 |
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1 | | PLD | F | A | DIFF | PTS |
Wakefield |
14 |
520 |
154 |
366 |
28 |
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Sheffield |
14 |
382 |
217 |
165 |
22 |
Bradford |
14 |
353 |
230 |
123 |
19 |
Toulouse |
13 |
344 |
186 |
158 |
17 |
Widnes |
14 |
327 |
269 |
58 |
15 |
Featherstone |
14 |
396 |
283 |
113 |
14 |
|
Doncaster |
14 |
257 |
341 |
-84 |
13 |
York |
15 |
339 |
305 |
34 |
12 |
Batley |
14 |
217 |
320 |
-103 |
12 |
Swinton |
14 |
284 |
344 |
-60 |
10 |
Halifax |
14 |
270 |
405 |
-135 |
10 |
Whitehaven |
14 |
266 |
424 |
-158 |
10 |
Barrow |
13 |
215 |
393 |
-178 |
10 |
Dewsbury |
15 |
184 |
439 |
-255 |
2 |
|