Re: Long, Hooper, Albert N...
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:21 pm
the r.f.l. wont go back on there decision now. the best thing terry can do is take the punishment.
WiganWarriorsFans.com
A site for fans of Wigan Warriors RLFC. News, views, statistics, profiles and more all contributed by supporters of Wigan RL.
https://www.wiganwarriorsfans.com/
Long, Hooper, Albert Named
Page 2 of 3
Re: Long, Hooper, Albert N...
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:38 pm
Maybe people will learn to think a little more deeply and understand how ludicrous bodies like the RFL disciplinary board are. Never swallow the rhetoric that is put in front of you
Re: Long, Hooper, Albert N...
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:55 am
You cant punish intent and possible damage or hopefully every single RL player would be up before the panel. It's pathetic and you just knew it would happen, he was laughing away at the game after it had happened and then seen without one single bruise or leftover from a bruise over the weekend.
RFL been made a fool out of in my opinion.
RFL been made a fool out of in my opinion.
Re: Long, Hooper, Albert N...
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:41 am
Do you often think people are watching you, or following you down the street?MrsLam posted:
You cant punish intent and possible damage or hopefully every single RL player would be up before the panel. It's pathetic and you just knew it would happen, he was laughing away at the game after it had happened and then seen without one single bruise or leftover from a bruise over the weekend.
RFL been made a fool out of in my opinion.
Re: Long, Hooper, Albert N...
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:51 am
Eh? Of course you punish intent. The whole idea is that the extent of the injury does NOT influence the outcome.MrsLam posted:
You cant punish intent and possible damage or hopefully every single RL player would be up before the panel.
In theory you could be before the panel for a swinging arm that did not connect and yet still get a ban because it could still be seen as dangerous play if the intent was obvious.
If you read the ruling on Newton he got banned because the panel considered Newton was deliberately trying to inure Gilmour and Long in both tackles.
Gilmour played last week and so clearly wasn't badly injured but does the fact he played mean Newton shuld not have been banned for that tackle?
The panel think he meant to hurt Gilmour and the fact in the end he didn't cause serious injury is neither here nor there.
The same applies to Long if he isn't injured as badly as first thought.
Snce the extent of the injury isn't supposed to have any influence on the ban how do you work that one out?It's pathetic and you just knew it would happen, he was laughing away at the game after it had happened and then seen without one single bruise or leftover from a bruise over the weekend.
RFL been made a fool out of in my opinion.
Dave
Re: Long, Hooper, Albert N...
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:19 am
Wigan could do with the Saints Physio team at the JJB if they can sort out these injurys so quick. I do feel the outcome of Newtons Appeal was due the outcome of Long's medical report, so if as reported newton was to launch a further appeal this futher new evidence would be taken into account! Wouldn't it!!! :doz:
Re: Long, Hooper, Albert N...
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:34 pm
I've argued this in another thread, Dave, but in the RFL statement it says:-DaveO posted:
Snce the extent of the injury isn't supposed to have any influence on the ban how do you work that one out?
Dave
"The Committee, in making their decisions, consider video recordings of the incident, reports from the referee and/or touch judges, medical reports..."
Why 'medical reports', since they're not supposed to take the extent of the injury into account? Have the goalposts moved again?
Re: Long, Hooper, Albert N...
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:46 pm
They are not supposed to take medical reports into account but I don't think that is the point. You can ban someone who didn't even connect let alone cause injury so unless the panel are prepared to disect their ruling saying how much (if any) of the ban was based on the fact Long was supposed to be out for X months Newton still has little grounds for appeal unless Long plays on Friday.GeoffN posted:I've argued this in another thread, Dave, but in the RFL statement it says:-DaveO posted:
Snce the extent of the injury isn't supposed to have any influence on the ban how do you work that one out?
Dave
"The Committee, in making their decisions, consider video recordings of the incident, reports from the referee and/or touch judges, medical reports..."
Why 'medical reports', since they're not supposed to take the extent of the injury into account? Have the goalposts moved again?
There are reports of him trying to take this further and the statement you quote above may, if Long plays, give him grounds to go that route. That is why it is best not to take injury into account in the first place.
If the intent was there just ban them for that. As you have said in the other thread (I think) trying to ban based on the injuries can't work as players have different recovery times.
Dave
Re: Long, Hooper, Albert N...
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:08 pm
DaveO: How can you say that you can punish intent? There would be plenty people in prison today for murder,not manslaughter or GBH, if that were the case and their sentences would be much longer. On the other hand people have been handed out severe sentences for what. in many people's view, were accidents and where there was no intent merely negligence. How do you know what Newton's intention was? Only he knows that![/i]DaveO posted:Eh? Of course you punish intent. The whole idea is that the extent of the injury does NOT influence the outcome.MrsLam posted:
You cant punish intent and possible damage or hopefully every single RL player would be up before the panel.
In theory you could be before the panel for a swinging arm that did not connect and yet still get a ban because it could still be seen as dangerous play if the intent was obvious.
If you read the ruling on Newton he got banned because the panel considered Newton was deliberately trying to inure Gilmour and Long in both tackles.
Gilmour played last week and so clearly wasn't badly injured but does the fact he played mean Newton shuld not have been banned for that tackle?
The panel think he meant to hurt Gilmour and the fact in the end he didn't cause serious injury is neither here nor there.
The same applies to Long if he isn't injured as badly as first thought.
Snce the extent of the injury isn't supposed to have any influence on the ban how do you work that one out?It's pathetic and you just knew it would happen, he was laughing away at the game after it had happened and then seen without one single bruise or leftover from a bruise over the weekend.
RFL been made a fool out of in my opinion.
Dave
Re: Long, Hooper, Albert N...
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:19 pm
That's why the NRL has different categories of illegal tackles, from negligent to deliberate. It is the intent that is assessed...even if, as Dave says, the swinging arm, for example, fails to connect or cause injury.Ron posted:
DaveO: How can you say that you can punish intent? There would be plenty people in prison today for murder,not manslaughter or GBH, if that were the case and their sentences would be much longer. On the other hand people have been handed out severe sentences for what. in many people's view, were accidents and where there was no intent merely negligence. How do you know what Newton's intention was? Only he knows that![/i]
Attempted murder, for example, is still an offence, even if no injury is caused.