You're having to really stretch things aren't you? Halfbacks don't get 'shotted' when they aren't looking, and that was the point I was making.



I did say that a high and late tackle isn't automatically a banning offence didn't I? And you have agreed with me in the part of your post I have quoted.



Therefore, there must be some element extra and that element is that Laffranchi - like the Wigan player in the case of Magennis - didn't see it coming as his back was turned towards McIlorum. Halfbacks are not facing the other way when a defender charges down the ball, even though they may also get hit high and/or late.

www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... l-rejected Time to move on.

www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... l-rejected Time to move on.

Too harsh.



The RFL are a bunch of clowns but hey, we already knew that.

Its not the severity of the resultant injury that's used to determine the ban, its the offence.

Sure I heard the opposite from your folk after Newton's assaults on Gilmour and Long a while ago.

Lets move forward and beat all comers and win the Grand Final for the Fans Players and the Club . DESPITE MICKEY MAC

[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?4039[/url



Note that the panel concede the tackle wasn't late, just high.

they agree its late in the appeals notes www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?4050

they agree its late in the appeals notes www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?4050

Wrong on both counts.







If it's fair why not bring it in to all Championship games as well? As money seems to be no object we might as well go the whole hog & do amateur games too.

Quote Fantastic Mr Cat="Fantastic Mr Cat"they agree its late in the appeals notes www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?4050'" They also say that the appeal is upheld! The final sentence reads: "Therefore the appeal is upheld and the 3 match suspension and a £300 fine stands together with the forfeiting of the £200 bond." Obviously they mean dismissed or not upheld, but how can we have any confidence in this process when the judgments are written up with such carelessness. The RFL's disciplinary system is an embarrassment to the game.

Quote Fantastic Mr Cat="Fantastic Mr Cat"they agree its late in the appeals notes www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?4050'" They also say that the appeal is upheld! The final sentence reads: "Therefore the appeal is upheld and the 3 match suspension and a £300 fine stands together with the forfeiting of the £200 bond." Obviously they mean dismissed or not upheld, but how can we have any confidence in this process when the judgments are written up with such carelessness. The RFL's disciplinary system is an embarrassment to the game.

Given his record and the offence, three's about right for me. He's maybe a bit unlucky to miss the final (if you get there) as my perception is that the RFL have tended not to ban players for the major occasions in the past.



However, there may be a hint of a silver lining; Micky could have got himself dismissed in a match that matters a hell of a lot more than Friday's.

Huh?

Presumably your grunt was in relation to my question rather than my statement. I am sure the RL would like to have 2 refs & VR at every game (actually there is video at every game, I assume he meant VR). The reason there isn't should be glaringly apparent to even the most short sighted Lanc. We have pages of ridicule on every board of every official, yet KW thinks we can magic up more paid full time, capable refs + VRs & the accompanying infrastructure. We currently have possibly 4 SL teams on the brink, most Championship clubs survive hand to mouth. You can either accept human frailties of players & officials or live in a dream world.

My grunt was in responce to you mentioning the Championship... Surely thats another issue. I think you will find that point being made is that while there is no problem with VR's being used, if its not done at every SL game, then surely it should not be used in cases like this. And, considering the guidelines do not permit it, we are merely questioning the validity of it being used in this and other cases. But please feel free to insult us, we are used to it. Water, ducks back and all that.

I apologise if you are over-sensitive & insulted by a bit of Yorks/Lancs banter, not that I will stop. Some of my friends & family etc. I read KWs post as a need to protect half backs by use of technology + 2 refs. My point is that Championship players surely have as much right to that protection? At the moment it seems to me that each game is recorded, which is about all we can afford. This thread is not just about whether Saints luvvin' Ganson advised Child on the severity of the tackle as you suggest, but I agree wholeheartedly that there should be clear guidelines saying whether the VR can intervene or not. IMO it would be insane for the VR not to be able to be able to comment on an incident that could end a player's career (in an extreme case). The fact that it is only used on usually 2/7 of games per week is irrelevant.

Thanks for educating me... I'll get back in my hovel..

all we want is consistancy, but we don't get it......will be intresting to see if any "reckless" high shots happen this weekend and the subsequent 3 game ban follows....mmmmmm

Consistency is lacking, I agree, but unless the perpetrators of reckless high shots happen to have had a previous red card this season I wouldn't expect them to receive 3 games.

We are dealing with human beings, both players & officials, who deal with incidents differently. No 2 tackles, out of the thousands every week, are identical. A high slap with open hand is very different to a stiff arm to a clench fist; are you saying every punishment should be the same, irrespective of intent, damage & player record?

intent and injury caused obviously don't come into it........ask Rangi.....

As I said at the time, I think the RL daren't conclude that Chase would do that deliberately to a fellow player. If that had been the conclusion Chase would be lucky to have served his ban by this stage. But if you want consistency, surely he should receive the same ban as everyone irrespective of intent & injury?

Two very obvious points:



1. Consistency of treatment does not mean that everyone receives the same length of ban. It means that the process of identifying offences and deciding on guilt and punishment works in the same way for all incidents and alleged offenders. The outcome of each incident will depend on its own facts but it should be those facts and not the incompetence or bias of those involved in the process which determines whether the incident is properly dealt with during the game and then by the disciplinary panel.



2. To get a ban you need need to be sent off or put on report; many offences that would merit a red card and a ban are being overlooked or dealt with simply by the award of a penalty and as a result do not reach the disciplinary panel. Dropping an elbow on a tackled player would merit a 1-3 match ban under the guidelines but despite this offence being committed in the Wigan v Saints game the offender did not appear before the disciplinary panel.

Agree 100%







Agree again







And again







Agree, though incompetence in tackling technique & refereeing are human traits that are impossible to eradicate. I don't believe there is any deliberate bias for or against teams from officials, though all will have their favourite teams.







Obviously a typo there but with videoing of all games I would think all incidents are reviewed by the RL. Just because a player doesn't appear in front of the panel doesn't mean he didn't have his offence reviewed & received a warning or decided no punishment was warranted. (The Perry incident was cheap & childish granted, a penalty was sufficient IMO).

A 4 match ban is a joke, if that was Ryan Bailey he'd be playing at the weekend

As I said earlier, it was the fact that Laffranchi could not see the shot coming that was the reason for the Grade C charge:



[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?4039Have a read of the appeal[/url and you'll see the relevant bit here:



[iThe committee note there was a swinging arm which made contact with your opponent’s head can be clearly seen on the DVD [uand the opponent could not see the tackle coming as he passed the ball.[/u[/i