www.hullkr.co.uk/club/news/artic ... ry-process

www.hullkr.co.uk/club/news/artic ... ry-process

I agree with him and applaud him having the balls to speak out again. One thing near enough all fans would agree on is there are massive inconsistencies with the disciplinary process.

Agree with all but point 3. I don't believe you can pigeon hole incidents into "similar", in a lot of cases. On that point he just sounds like a biased fan that we get all the time.

Do you speak for "near enough all fans", then? I disagree.

First, the disciplinary deals with many hundreds of cases. The vast majority go unremarked.

Second, there are from time to time, to some people, inconsistencies, which some of them exaggerate as "massive" for dramatic effect. I can't think of a single example of what I would class as a "massive" inconsistency.

But above all, the disciplinary have to reach decisions based on the laws of the game and their own personal opinions and interpretations of what they have heard and seen. In any contested hearing, there are at least two sides and the side that "loses" may argue the decision was wrong.

But then there is an appeals process. So any "massive inconsistency" would need toi be duplicated on appeal to survive. When did that happen?

The current example is Peacock's case. Many are arguing inconsistency because he was not banned. Yet Mr. Hudgell - no great fan of the disciplinary - supports the decision in Peacock's case. So, Hudgell says they got it right. A number of posters claim loudly they got it wrong. It is a prime example of the reality, which is that in the main it is not the decisions that are inconsistent, but just a demonstration that different people can see the same event and interpret the same event very differently. The people who sit on the panels may have more knowledge and training but they are ATEOTD just ordinary people, it is just that their opinions are the ones that count as the decision. Nobody claims that they are all perfect, and such an organisation should always be looking to improve, but I disagree with your premise for those reasons.

A player being fouled and the guy then smacking him are similar offences, the differences are often the outcomes, one might glance a blow off his forehead and the other might land square on the jaw an shatter it. Does a difference in 'luck' deserve different treatment.

You are driving your car at 35 in a 30 and not paying much attention. Nothing happens, no-one notices. You go free.

You are driving your car at 35 in a 30 and not paying much attention. . You get clocked. 3 points and a fine.

You are driving your car at 30 in a 30 and not paying much attention. A child dashes out and you hit it. You would have seen it and braked or swerved if paying attention. It dies. You are charged with causing death by careless driving. You go to jail.

Do your differences in luck deserve different treatment? Should every careless driver go to jail because but for their good luck they never actually killed someone?

In your example the player took the RISK of causing injury. It is fair enough therefore to take such injury into account, if it results.

IMHO what it amounts to is answering for the consequences of what you did. Because you took the known RISK of something bad happening, and knew there would be a serious consequence if something bad did happen. It may be just your good luck if in any given scenario nothing especially bad does happen, but the way this element of "luck" is factored in is, I think, both normal, sensible, understandable and the fairest alternative for all concerned.

If the Gobe had said anything prior to the Leigh game he might have some credibility. To turn around after a very close game and claim the outcome might have been different had Zak been suspended is crass. He might be right, we could have put BJB at full-back and he might have scored a hat-trick and we could have won comfortably. We'll never know. The fact that he uses the club website to air his BS speaks volumes about him. Hasn't he got any ambulances to chase?

I'm no fan of Hudgell, but when he's writing in general terms about the disciplinary AFTER his own appeal against a personal charge, on the website of the club he owns, he has every right to comment on other related issues. No one forced you to read it but you did and you don't agree. Fine.

And calling someone "the gobe" because you don't agree speaks volumes about you too tbh.

Agree entirely with FA.

If "similar" incidents have to receive the same punishments then every high tackle has to be punished in exactly the same way, regardless of danger or severity.

Also Hardaker wasn't charged with the same offence as Weyman. It was a much more serious charge and was an exceptional case. I don't see why it should be dealt with in the same time frame.

He mentioned the Hardaker incident to highlight the completely outrageous decision to ban Weyman for swearing at a team mate, yet Hardaker can apparently be seen to mouth the words he allegedly said to the ref, and was not banned. He used the local press and radio to air his views....hence the fine. If you are gonna call the guy a gobe and have a go about his BS, get your facts right otherwise you will tend to come across as a gobe too.

The guy puts a lot f money into the game, he has a right to his opinion IMO.

What I don't agree with is critiscing refs in the media. They are an easy target for poor performing coaches and clubs.

Imagine if refs started coming out and saying "well they lost due to the poor performance of number 7 and in all honesty the team are not up to this level of the game and should be looking for a new coach"

It could be a valid observation none the less...

IMHO they should go like soccer. Why, they have their World Cup on right now, and I can guarantee you'd never see players, fans or coaches publicly having a go at the referee.

Did you not see the match or watch/read the interviews with the Croatian players/coach afterwards?