I think a 3 match ban is unfair.
Two points.
First, he was sent off early in the game and, arguably, that's why we lost. That, in itself is punishment. Three matches is essentially ignoring this.
Second, how about a bit of leniency when this could mean he (maybe) loses out on Grand Final appearance. Where is the justice in this?
BriH wrote:I think a 3 match ban is unfair.
Two points.
First, he was sent off early in the game and, arguably, that's why we lost. That, in itself is punishment. Three matches is essentially ignoring this.
Second, how about a bit of leniency when this could mean he (maybe) loses out on Grand Final appearance. Where is the justice in this?
It's not the first time a player has missed a final through being sent off.
I know refer you to GODS post earlier showing the SWINGING ARM on sam tomkins in June. Makes clear contact with the jaw and nothing else. SA RECIVED NO SENDING OFF AND NO FURTHER BAN.
This in itself should be used IMO as a defence for mcilorum. Both have previous this season then both commit a very high shot that conects with the jaw of an opponent. one get sent off and 3 further matches and one get nothing at all.
I know refer you to GODS post earlier showing the SWINGING ARM on sam tomkins in June. Makes clear contact with the jaw and nothing else. SA RECIVED NO SENDING OFF AND NO FURTHER BAN.
This in itself should be used IMO as a defence for mcilorum. Both have previous this season then both commit a very high shot that conects with the jaw of an opponent. one get sent off and 3 further matches and one get nothing at all.
Here is the SA tackle on sam tomkins, this season, in June. He recieved no punishment for this.
Decision No charge
Details of Charge / Reason for NF Tackle is high however arm is below horizontal and initial contact is with ball. Penalty sufficient. MRP - No further action.
I have no doubt that fans of every Super League team could find examples of tackles worse than Mcllorum's on one of their players which went unpunished.
The RFL are not corrupt, but they are inept.
We cannot call for greater consistency then come out with calls for leniency because the Grand Final is only a few weeks away.
I will be very disappointed if the ban is not reduced tonight as it seems that reducing a ban on appeal has in recent times become the rule rather than the exception, which in turn raises a question mark over the judiciary process.
“Usually the fans that abuse players like Sam have never done anything of any note themselves. They’re nobodies, whose greatest claim to fame is abusing someone who has, and these so-called ‘Eddie the Experts’ pretend to their mates that they have."
georgeorwell wrote:Stop blaming everybody else, Micky is a hot head and has got his just deserts. I was sitting directly in line with the incident and imo it was a stupid act. He's let the club, his colleagues, the supporters and, more importantly, himself, down. We have lost a major asset at the very time we need all our best players available and firing on all cylinders. IDIOT :eusa17: Oh, and by the way, he completely ruined the game.
On a positive note, I thought our captain was absolutely magnificent; what a player!!!
cherry.pie wrote:The Sa tackle was down to the interpretation used by the disciplinary committee and it's a CONSISTENT interpretation. It's not one that I necessarily agree with, but point of initial contact being anywhere other than directly with the neck/jaw/head generally means a player escapes a ban.
Sa swung his arm making the tackle, not by much and not aggressively and it appeared to be the usual motion players use when attempting a tackle. The reason he escaped the ban though was because the arm that made contact with Tomkins head caught him underneath the arm and hit the ball before going high.
The interpretation of that can be questionable but at least they are consistent when it comes to tackles hit the arm/shoulder first. McIlorum's did not hit the shoulder first, but had it done he'd have got a reduced ban or none at all.
As Mr. McEnroe said "You cannot be serious." Also, interesting that the Video Ref didn't seem to have any input - funny that!