What i want to know why a few weeks earlier a hunslet old boys player was given a 5 match ban for pretty much the same type of challenge which resulted in a facial injury and chase was only given 3? Is it because hes a super league player and current england star? Also imo both players should have been given longer bans. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3491

What i want to know why a few weeks earlier a hunslet old boys player was given a 5 match ban for pretty much the same type of challenge which resulted in a facial injury and chase was only given 3? Is it because hes a super league player and current england star? Also imo both players should have been given longer bans. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3491

This is a very good point. Both my lads play, and tbh it's a worry - and it's more of a worry the older they get. When my 13 yr old plays now I find myself closing my eyes more and more. The kids are taught a lot of respect at junior level, but what a contradiction eh at Pro level.

More relevantly, I wonder how many he would have received had he not been in contention for an England spot...

He won't if someone puts a RECKLESS challenge on him. Lets see all the Cas apologists turn up then.

IMO the RFL have acted a bit like the CPS in criminal cases here. They've gone for the highest available grading that they think they can prove conclusively from the evidence they've got.

They could have tried to prove it was deliberate, which is difficult without being inside the head of the player at the time. They could have tried to prove it was with the elbow rather than the forearm, but did they have sufficient video evidence to do that (aren't all offences judged by the DVDs provided by the clubs, in order to ensure that TV games don't get treated unfairly?).

Rather than going with a prosecution for murder, they've taken the manslaughter route because it's easier to prove.

You do wonder why Newton's hit on Long got him 7 games though and this was only deemed worthy of 3.

Er, you search your posts with the keyword "ban". It takes about 5 microseconds. Your grasp of technology may, I concede, be on a par with your grasp of libel law.



Because you would have a long wait?

The report is up.rlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3553rl

Millward & Chase actually tried to convince them it was only "careless" rather than "reckless".

The committee have viewed the incident carefully and are satisfied that contact from the player was with the shoulder, which the player has admitted already and that made contact with his opponent’s head. The committee give the player credit for pleading guilty however they do not believe in this instance that the tackle was careless but indeed reckless. The opponent has sustained a serious injury which has been noted from his club and the committee view this incident very seriously and have indeed thought about going outside the Match Review Panel’s recommended guidelines for a Grade C offence. The player does not have a great record and the committee feel that a 3 match suspension and a £300 fine is appropriate.

They considered going outside guidelines.... Whoop de doo

I don't believe there was intent, and I have no reason to stick up for Cas/Chase. I believe it was reckless. Chase went for a shot with the shoulder and got over excited. Intent would have been to be purposely aiming at his head, and I just don't believe he was trying to do that.

However, the raising of the elbow is what annoys me about the lenience of the ban. The swing made the challenge more reckless and seems to have been ignored completely.

As for the cynics who think that Chase's international status has anything to do with his lenient punishment, anyone care to check who played hooker for GB in 2004...

I am pleased that the RFL haven't been fooled into thinking Chase went in with the elbow or forearm as I don't believe that was ever his intention.

As I've said before I believe it is only natural that the arm will raise up and I think there are various examples on the popular video sharing website of "big hits" in the NRL where you will see it is the case. Granted most of them are executed much better than this case.

Best of luck to Ropati in his recovery.

Remind me who he injured...

Reading the report I can only assume that the DVD footage available to the panel was significantly less detailed and conclusive than the Sky footage. Had they seen the latter then there could have been little doubt regarding the use of the elbow.

Chase is a lucky boy. Mind you, his fellow players now know for sure what a cowardly piece of work he is and I would guess he might be in for some 'special attention' upon his return.

This is the bit I don’t get.

As you righty say, it’s impossible to determine whether the action is deliberate or not.

So, has anybody ever been judged to have deliberately attempted to harm an opponent, if so, how did they know – were they wired to a lie detector?

My point is, is there any point in having an Intentional tariff, when they cannot prove it?

I'm now wondering if they actually viewed the incident in question, after reading this bit[i"your conduct contributed to a prolonged melee occurring"[/i

What "prolonged melee" would that be then?