I am a little surprised Mr Hudgell has not made a statement.

He had a valid point about 'inconsistency' - for which I believe he was fined - a couple of years ago - rlHERErl

Really? Most people who have commented from other clubs say it was careless at worst. However, I cannot dispute the tackle decision as I am not a professional RFL employee. My argument is that the length of the ban has been influenced by the announcement that it was season ending prior to the hearing. A grade B could have expected 2 matches. If he had received this and THEN the season ending announcement made, the 2 match ban would have stood, so why should the timing of the announcement be allowed to sway the decision?

An example of an injury being overstated influencing a suspension for you all:

Rangi Chase and his cannonball last season. The panel took into account Paul Anderson stating Ferres would be out 10-12 weeks when in reality Ferres was back before Chase was.

I also don't recall people kicking up much of a fuss about injury length being taken into account for that incident, in fact I remember people supporting injury length being used in bans!

Out of morbid curiosity who are these players and coaches?

You, yourself expected a 'cop-out' and no ban iirc, so you perhaps share my fear that yours is a forlorn hope.

I expect to be reading phrases like 'no evidence of intent' with whimsical disgruntlement in the coming weeks.

Anyway, if Daryl Powell can make people see things that aren't there, do we think that means Derren Brown might make a competent RL coach?

Probably because it's pointless and he doesn't want to give Red Hall any more handouts.

Rangi Chase was harshly treated as well IMO but it was far worse then this one. To my mind this one was just a tackle. He clearly didn't aim to injur the player and this whole 'he applied pressure' stuff is crazy. The tackle was done and dusted in a flash. He didn't run miles to come in, Shenton had only just been grabbed a hold off and he completed a perfecto good challenge to help his fellow defenders.

I'll throw my own club under a bus here (probably not wise on here but there you go) by highlighting an incident from a couple of years back which was far worse but didn't get punished. In the GF of 2013 Harrison Hansen came in from behind on Ratchford whilst Mossop was holding him and chopped him down. He travelled a fair distance to get involved and he was a little reckless. His initial contact was just above the knee do it wasn't a shocker but Raychford was in an awkward position and his Grand Final was ended. Did he deserve a ban? I'd still say one or maybe two games at a real push because he could have shown more care but again it was just an unfortunate incident. It was still way way worse then this incident with Boudebza (spelling) at the weekend though. There was another incident in that game also where a man held on the ground got his face smashed to pieces which resulted in a one game friendly ban for Ben Westwood.

As people say, it's the inconsistency which frustrates everyone the most.

Seems harsh compared to other incidents. Though I wouldn't have minded a 1 or 2 game ban (depending on his record) for carelessness as I believe pressure placed on the joints of players should be very strongly punished.

As for Chase, nah deserved everything every game of the ban he got. Whether he meant it or not I don't care. He attacked the leg of Ferres. The game is tough enough without those sh|thouse tactics.

Things that are designed simply to hurt should be harshly punished (chicken wings, cannonballs, standing on hands etc). They're soft, cowardly and should have no place in our game.

B*ll*cks Rangi Chase was harshly treated - he got off lightly as there was clear intent to injure! Same against Fev a few years ago the grub dilberately elbowed a Fev player in the face and broke his jaw - only got a small ban for that too.

Nothing in the JB tackle on Shenton, these tackles are made week in week out, he's just unfortunate that this resulted in injury. The disciplinary have proved yet again they are a farce.

I thought the Chase ban was a game or two heavy (but was probably based on his previous as well) but there was no doubt it was in a different league to this Boudebza one.

They'll be handing out four game bans like confetti this year if they're consistent (which we know they won't be).

Statement from HKR about the whole debacle. www.hullkr.co.uk/club/news/artic ... n-boudebza

Statement from HKR about the whole debacle. www.hullkr.co.uk/club/news/artic ... n-boudebza

Whilst the RFL Disciplinary clearly explains their justification what is often lost, especially when viewing thing frame by frame on video, is the speed of decision making and deliberation of intent that occurs in real time. People fall awkwardly, initial contact slips, yet when slowed everything is diagnosed as a deliberate action, rather than a symptomatic reaction.

But, end of, if these chairman are so dissatisfied with the running of the game, the TV deal, sponsorships, salary caps,the disciplinary system etc, then shouldn't they, en-mass, do something about it - form a breakaway perhaps....

Should it have to come to that though? surely in a professional sport the very least we can ask for is consistency of decision making.

I have sympathy for referees, they make decisions at full speed on a crowded field often in poor conditions. Once anything video based comes into then there should be no real need for debate, it should be either conclusive right / wrong decision or a not able to tell due to camera angles etc. Once debated and a definite decision come to it should then be pretty black and white decision.

Yet week after week we see poor video ref decisions, inconsistency in what is punished and what isn't, this simply should not happen. Think it was last year when FC tried to defend Paea by showing 4 or 5 other incidents, some in the same game that had gone unpunished yet it was just ignored, the panel dismissed this off hand.

If the RFL have a better camera angle that shows bad technique and intent of the Boudebza incident then show it, If JB had a record of hurting people in tackles then that would be mitigating yet if as seems to be the case there isn't either of these and it was just an honest tackle that was deemed bit clumsy in very wet conditions then the decision to ban him for double the tariff stinks.

1. Even the angle Sky have shows Boudebza recklessly applying undue pressure to Shenton's knee with the leg whip the RFL correctly point out. Just because it wasn't massively obvious to you doesn't mean it isn't there. If he doesn't leg whip and lose control, Shenton doesn't miss an entire season + international series.

2. A previous clean record as well as showing remorse (text Shenton after the incident) were taken into account as mitigating factors. If Boudebza had only one or neither of these mitigating factors his ban would have been between 5-7 games.

3. As they point out, the initial grade is a guideline only, if new evidence comes to light they are free to go over or under it as appropriate.

Hudgell throwing his teddy out of the cot is nothing new and if he feels so strongly then why did he as an ambulance chaser not go to the hearing to defend his player as opposed to sending the coach and a flimsy argument of "oh well erm...he slipped?"?

Now the RFL just need to actually be consistent for once and keep throwing 1-2 game charges out for this crap with room to bump it up for other factors (injury, previous record). That and y'know just straight up ban the "3rd man in" making any contact at all with an opponents knee.


A few teams have tried that in the past and it never works, which is crazy. It's probably more a thing of "well they didn't get charged, sorry can't do anything about it".

Whoever does the citing on a Monday and sends things to the panel needs changing, not necessarily the panel itself which changes on a regular basis anyway.

Hudgell has made specific claims that the panel pre-judged the appeal before submissions were received and that inadmissible evidence was used against JB.

Now there's an argument about the relative importance of process and outcome, and I know you are satisfied with the panel's decision. Given what Hudgell has charged, and bearing in mind that it is a decision that has sparked controversy, do you think there's a case for reviewing the conduct of this panel? I'm not making any suggestion that they're corrupt or malicious, but if what NH says is true, then I think it is fair to say they've been 'reckless' - they do after all have a duty of care to the game.