When the RFL fail to discipline players

[highland convert]

Is it more widespread than you think? What this fellow up to? http://www.quins.co.uk/NewsRLHub.ink

[Matthew]

As I predicted, pryce will be back for the CC final.

In my opinion he should have been sitting out at least half a dozen games. Burgess could have (and perhaps should have) reported him to the police for sexual assault. I am sure being on the sex offenders register would have prevented him from doing it again

This is not a player being overly aggressive in the tackle or punching someone because they fear they will be punched. This is a disgusting act by a disgusting cheat.

This is yet another case of stains getting preferential treatment from the RFL. Platt chinned maria because in all likely he was about to get punched - two matches. Talau starts a row and then punches Darren Albert in the face (and breaks his nose) one match - where is the consistency?

sean long bets against his own team - cries about being not guilty in the media and then pleads guilty at the last minute. The RFL ban him - but make sure he is back in time for the CC final. That should have been a ban of at least a year

RFL are a joke - a bunch of gutless, spineless incompetents

On a different note, I think it would be worth having a few banners reminding pryce what a pervert he is next time they play at the JJB - perhaps with a few chants thrown in?

[cpwigan]

I was often described as an animal when I played sport. However, I never spat at another opponent and nor did I grab anybody by the testicles. There are certain acts that are taboo in sport no matter how vicious you are towards opponents. Remember as well it was not a one off spur of the moment incident. He did this twice.

Rob, do you think the Challenge Cup Final had any bearing on the length of suspension

[butt monkey]

Is John Hopoate still playing? (not at top level). Maybe we could sign him for one match (v Stains) He and Pryce could have so much, fun (!!??) whilst the rest carried on playing.

Hopoate, if I can remember, was sacked by his club - "in disgrace", and suffered a season long ban. With our disciplinary board ineptness, if he committed his "foul" over here, IMO there would be an awful lot of players walking with a waddle now!

[Matthew]

butt monkey posted:
Hopoate, if I can remember, was sacked by his club - "in disgrace", and suffered a season long ban. With our disciplinary board ineptness, if he committed his "foul" over here, IMO there would be an awful lot of players walking with a waddle now!

Only if he didn't play for stains.

The foul was committed in the CC so his ban should have also covered the CC final. How many games do you think Newton would have got for that?

[butt monkey]

We could "laugh" about the inconsistencies for ages.

These "Bans" are meted out in order to attempt a sort of behavioural control over players, yet at the same time, not spoil there "big days". Why don't the RFL just "tag" them and give the ASBO's for what they are worth!

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Rob, do you think the Challenge Cup Final had any bearing on the length of suspension

No idea... I think the disciplinary should publically outline their policies to save confusion.

I don't think Saints are given different treatment to other sides though. If they'd got special treatment wouldn't all their players be found not-guilty each time? If the RFL had a vendetta against Wigan wouldn't they punish them as often as possible?

[Matthew]

robjoenz posted:

cpwigan posted:
Rob, do you think the Challenge Cup Final had any bearing on the length of suspension

No idea... I think the disciplinary should publically outline their policies to save confusion.

I don't think Saints are given different treatment to other sides though. If they'd got special treatment wouldn't all their players be found not-guilty each time? If the RFL had a vendetta against Wigan wouldn't they punish them as often as possible?

As incompetent as the RFl are - even they wouldn't be so stupid as to let saints players off; might be a bit obvious don't you think?

I think that they have consistently favoured saints over the last few years.

A couple of examples:

A bradford player punches a saints player, clearly believing that a punch is about to thrown at him - he gets 2 matches.

A saints player punches another player in the face breaking his nose - 1 match.

A Wigan player leads with a forearm into a tackle, no damage to the player - 3 matches.

A saints player is found guilty of striking leaving another player unconscious for several minutes - 0 matches.

2 players are found guilty of betting against their team. The players receive different lengths of ban for the same offence - one of the players no longer plays for saints at this point; he receives the longer ban.

For what ever reason the saints players seem to get a more lenient treatment - do you think that Terry Newton would have got away with 3 matches for sexually assaulting another player? Fighting is to a certain extent part of the game - most people associate rugby with the occasional fight. What pryce did was considered, cowardly and frankly disgusting - pryce has a pretty poor disciplinary record - most of his offences have been for deliberate foul play; yet he escapes with a relatively light sentence; being able to return for an important game for his team.

[Spanakopitta]

At least the RFL have had the balls to ban him

Sorry couldn't resist that

And before people start, i do think its a serious incident, that it should have been dealt with more harshly and that the RFL should actually get some balls and ban a stains (sic) player for a meaningful number of matches (not always a match short of them missing a final / semi / their 400th match etc)

[robjoenz]

You haven't half a twist on things to put it in your favour haven't you.

Matthew posted:
A bradford player punches a saints player, clearly believing that a punch is about to thrown at him - he gets 2 matches.

Clearly believing? Now you can read his mind? You have no idea what Platt was thinking or Fasavalu.

A saints player punches another player in the face breaking his nose - 1 match.

Extent of injury isn't a guide to go by.

A Wigan player leads with a forearm into a tackle, no damage to the player - 3 matches.

...I presume you mean Fletcher last season at Wakefield? Again, extent of injury doesn't matter, it is what could have happened. Why raise your arm to an on coming player? There's no excuse for it, was just a daft thing to do.

A saints player is found guilty of striking leaving another player unconscious for several minutes - 0 matches.

Several minutes? You pressed pause didn't you! Again, extent of injury doesn't mean a thing. His defence was probably that Richards fell into the tackle. You can't punish a player because you don't like him and because of that you think there was malicious intent. You need to be able to prove it. How can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is intent when, had the tackle been made half a second sooner, it would have been legitimate?

2 players are found guilty of betting against their team. The players receive different lengths of ban for the same offence - one of the players no longer plays for saints at this point; he receives the longer ban.

...because one was playing and the other one wasn't. Nothing to do with who they played for.

For what ever reason the saints players seem to get a more lenient treatment - do you think that Terry Newton would have got away with 3 matches for sexually assaulting another player? Fighting is to a certain extent part of the game - most people associate rugby with the occasional fight. What pryce did was considered, cowardly and frankly disgusting - pryce has a pretty poor disciplinary record - most of his offences have been for deliberate foul play; yet he escapes with a relatively light sentence; being able to return for an important game for his team.

They don't get treated any differently. Admittedly some disciplinary decisions are confusing. It depends on how the panel views it, they consist of an ex-player, an ex-official and someone with a law background. All will have a different slant on things. The lawyer will want to see concrete proof.

Why did Martin Aspinwall get away with blatently fly-kicking an opponent at 'Quins a couple of years ago? Why was Hock not suspended for repeat dangerous throws earlier on in the seaosn? I've lost track of the times I have asked these question, no-one knows how to answer them so ignores them! Can you explain it Matthew? Maybe the RFL give Wigan special treatment?

What is Leon Pryce's disciplinary record like? Is it really that bad?

Bringing up Terry Newton as a comparison is meaningless... who knows what Terry would get unless he actually committed the same offence or whether the punishment was different based on different disciplinary histories.