PUNISHMENT TO FIT THE CRIME

[Row A Exile]

How's this for a controversial idea (excuse the sarcasm). Any players found guilty of certain offences (spear tackle, high tackle, tripping etc) get a mandatory ban set against the offence caused and then if players are injured due to the offence, the player who has been found guilty would then serve a ban to remain in force until the injured played is able to resume playing. Ie. Spear Tackle 3 match ban and if player tackled out for 2 months then this is added to the 3 matches!!!! May be a problem if player injured has to retire though

[Fraggle]

pie eaters posted:
Not a abd idea about the set amount of time but i dont agree with the idea of keeping him out until that person comes back

I'd agree, particularly in a week when Long and Albert are named in the Saints squad despite being so severely injured they are supposed to be out for the season. It seems that some coach's assessments of how long players are out due to injury are not always totally honest (or may be complicated by further injuries).

[GeoffN]

Row A Exile posted:
How's this for a controversial idea (excuse the sarcasm). Any players found guilty of certain offences (spear tackle, high tackle, tripping etc) get a mandatory ban set against the offence caused and then if players are injured due to the offence, the player who has been found guilty would then serve a ban to remain in force until the injured played is able to resume playing. Ie. Spear Tackle 3 match ban and if player tackled out for 2 months then this is added to the 3 matches!!!! May be a problem if player injured has to retire though

No - the extent of the injury is as much to do with the player injured as the offending tackle...unless you're saying that a hit on, say, a little half-back should be deemed more serious than on a big prop.
Suppose, for example, that Long or Albert get hit high in the Bradford game, further damaging their (alleged) injuries - should that be punished more than if they weren't already injured? And if so, what about Sculthorpe hitting Farrell's already broken nose?

[robjoenz]

I think a mandatory minimum ban for similar offences is a good idea, however, as TWO EYES suggests each case also needs to be based on merit, as for example, some high tackles are worse than others. If anyone saw the high tackle with the elbow from Clinton Newton (Newcastle) last season that was awful, I think he got 12 games.

I do not agree that the punishment should be linked to the recovery period of the injured player because as someone wrote, recovery periods vary from person to person. One thing that is certain though is that a spear tackle or an intended elbow to the head both have the potential to do serious damage and should be treated more strictly. (Which is why I agree with the RFL's decision on Newton).

On the issue of predetermining the ban before the hearing, well I believe it good practice in any professional career to prepare before any type of meeting. So it's right that the Committee view the case beforehand, form their opinion and then listen to the accused's opinion to give the committee something extra to think about. If the defence doesn't change the thinking of the disciplinary then the predecided punishment holds.

[robjoenz]

TWO EYED WARRIOR posted:
Fine i just think if we are to go down this route then videos of each match must be viewed by a totally independent panel and the players offences dealt with along with all the officials own performances , then and only then can we introduce the mandatory bans for high shots etc, but again agree that the ban should not be linked to the length of time the injured player is out of action.

There is a representative of the RFL at all games to monitor the performance of referees on top of the fourth official and I read somewhere once that Stuart Cummings views all games to see his referees have faired. Although I imagine this would be done by more than one person.

My point is that all referee performances are monitored. The only thing the RFL can do is improve support via video referees and touch judges speaking directly into his head-piece!

[- psycho -]

rob jsut a question.... what is moran doing in your picture?

[mrs_carney]

- psycho - posted:
rob jsut a question.... what is moran doing in your picture?

He was dancing, just for rob!

[robjoenz]

- psycho - posted:
rob jsut a question.... what is moran doing in your picture?

He was just about to shake willie c's hand after the Saints game!

[- psycho -]

mrs_carney posted:

- psycho - posted:
rob jsut a question.... what is moran doing in your picture?

He was dancing, just for rob!

he was!! lol im quite gulable so please try not to mess with my fragile head mrs c lol

[- psycho -]

TWO EYED WARRIOR posted:

He was just about to shake willie c's hand after the Saints game!

Im glad you said "c's hand after the saints game" as he does look to be heading towards the nether regions of the person in front of him

lmfao that one was sheer class. coem to think of it it was a good job to.