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.rlhttps://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?

Surely intentional cases would be punching, kicking, biting, etc

I think they men Francis Melee

Not at all. Judicial bodies do exactly this all day long. The disciplinary is just one more form of judicial body and all they do (and all they can do) is arrive at a decision based on the [irelevant standard of proof[/i

It would be nonsensical if it was anything else. On the basis of the 'impossible' argument, no person, ever, anywhere, could ever be convicted of doing anything deliberately, if they came up with an excuse, since only they can actually know what was in their head. That would be absurd.

Yep I appreciate those, however, I’m referring to the following

A-C Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – reckless
C-D Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – intentional
C-E Strikes with elbow – tackling – reckless
D-F Strikes with elbow – tackling – intentional


How does the panel decide whether intentional or not, Superleague player or Championship, International or not, toss a coin?

I think it did start to get a bit tasty in the few minutes after that - didnt Emmett swing closed fist at a Fev forward in the tackle etc?

So, you’re presumably saying the Disciplinary Panel decided that the Chase challenge was just reckless?

If that’s the case we need some new blood (no pun intended) on the Panel.

Actually Chase's record is pretty good. Only one ban of 1 match in 7 years of playing as a professional, according to analysis of previous disciplinary reports. "A great record" is such sloppy terminology. They have specific details available, so why not refer to them?