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?

Well punching, swinging an arm into the face of an opponent, leading with an elbow could easily be classified as intentional strikes. I think it would be tough however to say whether the use of a shoulder was intentional unless it was being dropped on a grounded opponent perhaps.

Also this bit


[sizePotential for serious injury[/size

Since when is a broken jaw only potentially serious rather than serious

Bit of a contrary judgement really - they talked about the aggravating factors, stated that it was within their gift to go beyond the guidelines, made reference to his recent record, then went for the pathetic cop-out of 3 games and £300.

Let that be a lesson to you Mr Chase!

Cue Millward annd Chase high-fiving each other on the steps of Red Hall before going for a celebratory Nandos.

Although there are numerous categories, at the end of the day, the disciplinary have decided the challenge was reckless rather than intentional.

The overwhelming consensus, on here at least, was that it was intentional.

But what do we know, we’re just plebs, not knowledgeable disciplinary panellists, or maybe the panel was made up of Cas fans .

According to the rota, the panel was made up of :
P Charlesworth W George R Bridge

I assume when they said the had considered going outwith guidelines - that is code for a split decision in the panel ?

Not sure whether this has already been posted. Can't be bothered looking through 40+ pages.

that is aweful!

just watched it back for the 1st time and it is clearly intentional and Chase should be banned for as long as Tangi is out for.

Discrasful!!!!

The way I see it Cas were getting beat by lower league local rivals Fev and things weren't going Chase's way and he lost control. He is a petulant so and so when things don't go his way and seems to me that his frustrations got the better of him.