This week’s outcomes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/65017886
I remember when tripping was an automatic sending off offence not just a fine!
Disciplinary Committee
-
fozzieskem
- Posts: 6494
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:54 am
Re: Disciplinary Committee
Gone from one extreme to the otherCharriots Offiah wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:40 pm This week’s outcomes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/65017886
I remember when tripping was an automatic sending off offence not just a fine!
-
josie andrews
- Posts: 35775
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:17 pm
- Location: Wigan
- Contact:
Re: Disciplinary Committee
Why two stars picked up bans for dangerous contact but two others didn’t
Seven players have been charged by the disciplinary panel this week.
Once again it is a prime example of how the new disciplinary system works with a greater focus on fines rather than bans.
However, there have been two players hit with bans.
One of those is Morgan Knowles who has been hit with a one match ban for dangerous contact against Hull FC.
His former teammate James Bentley has also received the same punishment for the same offence.
Meanwhile, Ligi Sao, despite calls for him to receive a yellow card, didn’t receive a ban.
Teammate Davey Litten has been fined however for other contrary behaviour.
A further three players have been fined £250 whilst Arthyr Romano has been charged for striking but has received no punishment.
Only one game had no player punished and that was the clash between Huddersfield Giants and Wigan Warriors.
Interestingly, former Wigan man, Warrington Wolves star George Williams received a fine for tripping.
Following the latest round of Betfred Super League fixtures, the Match Review Panel have issued the following sanctions
Morgan Knowles St Helens Dangerous Contact B 1 Match Penalty Notice
James Bentley Leeds Rhinos Dangerous Contact B 1 Match Penalty Notice
Joe Westerman Castleford Tigers Dangerous Contact B £250 fine
George Williams Warrington Wolves Tripping B £250 fine
Shane Wright Salford Red Devils Dangerous Contact B £250 fine
Davey Litten Hull FC Other Contrary Behaviour B £250 fine
Arthur Romano Catalans Dragons Striking A No further action
You will notice that four players were charged with Grade B Dangerous Contact but only two were banned.
Well here is why Bentley and Knowles were banned according to the minutes:
“A defending player makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes flexion to the head, neck or spinal column on an attacking player, which poses an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.”
Meanwhile Westerman’s offence was:
“Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.”
Interestingly, Shane Wright’s offence was the same as Bentley and Knowles’ but he received no ban:
A defending player makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes flexion to the head, neck or spinal column on an attacking player, which poses an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.”
https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/why-two- ... dnt-70986/
Seven players have been charged by the disciplinary panel this week.
Once again it is a prime example of how the new disciplinary system works with a greater focus on fines rather than bans.
However, there have been two players hit with bans.
One of those is Morgan Knowles who has been hit with a one match ban for dangerous contact against Hull FC.
His former teammate James Bentley has also received the same punishment for the same offence.
Meanwhile, Ligi Sao, despite calls for him to receive a yellow card, didn’t receive a ban.
Teammate Davey Litten has been fined however for other contrary behaviour.
A further three players have been fined £250 whilst Arthyr Romano has been charged for striking but has received no punishment.
Only one game had no player punished and that was the clash between Huddersfield Giants and Wigan Warriors.
Interestingly, former Wigan man, Warrington Wolves star George Williams received a fine for tripping.
Following the latest round of Betfred Super League fixtures, the Match Review Panel have issued the following sanctions
Morgan Knowles St Helens Dangerous Contact B 1 Match Penalty Notice
James Bentley Leeds Rhinos Dangerous Contact B 1 Match Penalty Notice
Joe Westerman Castleford Tigers Dangerous Contact B £250 fine
George Williams Warrington Wolves Tripping B £250 fine
Shane Wright Salford Red Devils Dangerous Contact B £250 fine
Davey Litten Hull FC Other Contrary Behaviour B £250 fine
Arthur Romano Catalans Dragons Striking A No further action
You will notice that four players were charged with Grade B Dangerous Contact but only two were banned.
Well here is why Bentley and Knowles were banned according to the minutes:
“A defending player makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes flexion to the head, neck or spinal column on an attacking player, which poses an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.”
Meanwhile Westerman’s offence was:
“Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.”
Interestingly, Shane Wright’s offence was the same as Bentley and Knowles’ but he received no ban:
A defending player makes contact with an opponent after the ball has been released by an opponent in a vulnerable position which causes flexion to the head, neck or spinal column on an attacking player, which poses an unacceptable risk of injury to that player.”
https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/why-two- ... dnt-70986/
Anyone can support a team when it is winning, that takes no courage.
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage. #18thMan
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage. #18thMan
Re: Disciplinary Committee
I would guess the outcomes wrong nearly every time.
I have supported Wigan RL since the late 80s. First game was a cup tie v Barrow. Also a fan of football and Speedway. Have a varied taste in music.
-
Charriots Offiah
- Posts: 4236
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:14 pm
Re: Disciplinary Committee
What a surprise Saints are appealing Knowles’ ban.
-
fozzieskem
- Posts: 6494
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:54 am
Re: Disciplinary Committee
Didn’t work it seemsCharriots Offiah wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 2:13 pm What a surprise Saints are appealing Knowles’ ban.
-
josie andrews
- Posts: 35775
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:17 pm
- Location: Wigan
- Contact:
Re: Disciplinary Committee
Why St Helens’ Morgan Knowles appeal wasn’t punished with an extra game’s ban
Yesterday St Helens appealed Morgan Knowles’ ban for dangerous contact from their win over Hull FC.
However, the independent tribunal on Tuesday night upheld the Match Review Panel’s decision, meaning that Knowles will miss Thursday night’s Betfred Super League fixture away at Huddersfield Giants.
Knowles was charged with making a Grade B ‘Dangerous Contact’ offence with a Hull FC opponent during last Friday’s Betfred Super League match. The Match Review Panel had decided that the contact was reckless, posed an unacceptable risk of injury to the Hull FC player, and issued a one-match suspension
The Saints argued that the contact was ‘careless’ rather than ‘reckless’ and that the charge should therefore be downgraded from B to A.
The independent tribunal found the grading to be correct and also issued Knowles a £500 fine.
Hearing about the fine, some fans questioned why he didn’t receive an extra game’s ban.
This is because in the past we have seen players given an extra match suspension following failed appeals seen as “frivolous.”
The fact that he was fined £500 suggests that the appeal was perhaps “frivolous” though it is key to point out that that word has not been used by the panel perhaps due to the fact that Saints only contested the grading and not the ban itself.
Speaking to Serious About Rugby League, a spokesperson for the RFL said: “Each tribunal considers each case on its individual merits and arrives at a decision accordingly in line with operational rules and sentencing guidelines.”
This would suggest that the panel decided there wasn’t anything “frivolous” about the appeal.
https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/why-st-h ... ban-71123/
Yesterday St Helens appealed Morgan Knowles’ ban for dangerous contact from their win over Hull FC.
However, the independent tribunal on Tuesday night upheld the Match Review Panel’s decision, meaning that Knowles will miss Thursday night’s Betfred Super League fixture away at Huddersfield Giants.
Knowles was charged with making a Grade B ‘Dangerous Contact’ offence with a Hull FC opponent during last Friday’s Betfred Super League match. The Match Review Panel had decided that the contact was reckless, posed an unacceptable risk of injury to the Hull FC player, and issued a one-match suspension
The Saints argued that the contact was ‘careless’ rather than ‘reckless’ and that the charge should therefore be downgraded from B to A.
The independent tribunal found the grading to be correct and also issued Knowles a £500 fine.
Hearing about the fine, some fans questioned why he didn’t receive an extra game’s ban.
This is because in the past we have seen players given an extra match suspension following failed appeals seen as “frivolous.”
The fact that he was fined £500 suggests that the appeal was perhaps “frivolous” though it is key to point out that that word has not been used by the panel perhaps due to the fact that Saints only contested the grading and not the ban itself.
Speaking to Serious About Rugby League, a spokesperson for the RFL said: “Each tribunal considers each case on its individual merits and arrives at a decision accordingly in line with operational rules and sentencing guidelines.”
This would suggest that the panel decided there wasn’t anything “frivolous” about the appeal.
https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/why-st-h ... ban-71123/
Anyone can support a team when it is winning, that takes no courage.
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage. #18thMan
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage. #18thMan
-
josie andrews
- Posts: 35775
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:17 pm
- Location: Wigan
- Contact:
Re: Disciplinary Committee
Let’s see what happens to others appeals!
Anyone can support a team when it is winning, that takes no courage.
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage. #18thMan
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage. #18thMan