Just looking at the disciplinary guidelines I think the ruling was too light.

Grade C-E Strikes with elbow – tackling – reckless
Grade D-F Strikes with elbow – tackling – intentional

Grade - Normal suspension range
C - 2-3
D - 3-5
E - 4-8
F - 8+

So they ruled for a 3 match suspension that either it was the lowest grade of reckless tackle but the highest suspension in that range or that it was intentional but the lowest possible suspension.

Either way, I'd have given more.
The rules do allow for a clean record to be taken into considerationbut equally they say an injury to a player because of the incident should also be taken into consideration.

I think it was adjudged to have been the forearm and not the elbow that hit Ropati (although it looked like the elbow followed through...) and so was grade C.

And they obviously didn't take the severity of the injury or Chase's stance after the incident (suggesting intent IMO) into account.

Let's hope someone repays him in a reckless way of course that way peter gentles best mate can be made to look even more stupid than he already does! If that's possible.

Link?

What's a grade A-B offence?

Quote 18th Man="18th Man"Link? What's a grade A-B offence?'" www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3553

Quote 18th Man="18th Man"Link? What's a grade A-B offence?'" www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3553

Probably questioning a ref whilst not sporting a a blue and yellow shirt and a stupid ginner hair dye?

www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... 0Final.pdf guide lines but there is quite a few pages to sift through

www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... 0Final.pdf guide lines but there is quite a few pages to sift through

Thanks for that Snowie, I always assumed Grade A was the worst!

Fev did a good job on rag chase thats why he spit the dummy out and did what he did. I.M.O

Yes, I read that the other night and it explains several reasons as to why the punishment was as it was. S

Where does it explain the evidence that can be submitted? I must have missed that bit. As far as I know, the only evidence that can be submitted in support is video footage from the club (otherwise, players could rightfully claim they were being discriminated against by more detailed coverage in televised games). The video footage from the club is unlikely to reveal what has clearly been shown to be the case in other footage, namely a case of deliberate foul play. The result is the RFL is made to look stupid (again) and the defendent gets off lightly.

Chase is a lucky man. His victim is much less fortunate. Chase doesn't deserve the support he's received from certain quarters over this. People should save it for someone more worthy.

Where did I say evidence can be submitted?