Six month ban for Flower

[GBH]

I've been considering writing to the trade press this weekend for the Monday papers.
The basis is the media comments about the BF and other issues surrounding discpline or a lack of it.

Paul Heywood ( a soccer journo) wrote in yesterday's i newpaper and opened with the Westwood/Green incident from last year's GF. He says that nothing was done and Silverwood used the On Report which Heywood described as a cop out after the Warrington player hit a man who could not defend himself.
Andy Wilson wrote about the start of this year's first weekend when St Helens Soliola took outwarrington's M Monaghan. Both attempts to win a game by nullifying the opposition's playmaker by thuggery.

So this season started where the 2013 ended with a thug taking out the oppositon's playmaker.
From the first round 2014 to the last when we had Paul Wood trying to win a game by stopping Wigan's momentum following a try, he decided to have a fist fight with the nearest player which happened to be Eddie Pettybourne.
The following night St Helens' Walmsley put his shoulder/collar bone into his opponents head and deliberately concussed Luke Robinson who could not continue in the game. Another Thug taking out the oppositon playmaker.
Then the 2014 GF, it started with Masoe not attempting a legitimate tackle on Gelling but a swinging arm intended again to injure his opponent by concussing him. Another thug trying to advantage his team by thuggery.
Then came the Lance Hohaia incident, with the Saints player racing 25 mtrs to smash his elbow into Ben Flower's jaw.
Etc.
I won't go on as that's enough. Suffice to say my real complaint will be against the Match Officials, Match Review Panel and the Discipliary committee.
We have to start somewhere.
That seem the most likely place for mew to start.

Couldnt agree more, and the more people that complain the better.

[TrueBlueWarrior]

Agreed Ted, good post!!

[DaveO]

I don't understand yours or Mikes stance if Wigan complain they will look bad? all depends on the complainant that is made if they are saying LH got off scott free then I don't see how they look bad if they arnt complaining about flowers ban then how are they condoning his actions.

Of course they'd look bad!!

"we're not complaining about Bens' ban but you know that bloke he sparked and then chinned when he was nearly unconscious? Well he didn't get a long enough ban."

can't see how anyone would have a go at IL or Rads if they'd said that.

Is it a lie? Is it incorrect? Did it not happen? Was it against the rules? Was the ban long enough?

So why would they look bad saying it?

Because it has nothing to do with them.

They were there to represent Flower not complain about LH's ban.

Had they started to go down that road then I dare say they would have told to shut up.

The issue of LH's ban is something that could be brought up later if there is any attempt to improve the system as evidence the current one doesn't work but to start going on about LH's ban at Flowers hearing? Never going to happen.

[TrueBlueWarrior]

Of course they'd look bad!!

"we're not complaining about Bens' ban but you know that bloke he sparked and then chinned when he was nearly unconscious? Well he didn't get a long enough ban."

can't see how anyone would have a go at IL or Rads if they'd said that.

Is it a lie? Is it incorrect? Did it not happen? Was it against the rules? Was the ban long enough?

So why would they look bad saying it?

Because it has nothing to do with them.

They were there to represent Flower not complain about LH's ban.

Had they started to go down that road then I dare say they would have told to shut up.

The issue of LH's ban is something that could be brought up later if there is any attempt to improve the system as evidence the current one doesn't work but to start going on about LH's ban at Flowers hearing? Never going to happen.

I am sorry but it has everything to do with them if you are giving one player a 13 match ban for an over aggressive retaliation and another player 1 game for an over aggressive retaliation!!

By representing Flower you are allowed to evidence other similar incidents to question the length of the ban handed out to Flower and the consistency of bans, hence discussing LH ban!!

[DaveO]

Is it a lie? Is it incorrect? Did it not happen? Was it against the rules? Was the ban long enough?

So why would they look bad saying it?

Because it has nothing to do with them.

They were there to represent Flower not complain about LH's ban.

Had they started to go down that road then I dare say they would have told to shut up.

The issue of LH's ban is something that could be brought up later if there is any attempt to improve the system as evidence the current one doesn't work but to start going on about LH's ban at Flowers hearing? Never going to happen.

I am sorry but it has everything to do with them if you are giving one player a 13 match ban for an over aggressive retaliation and another player 1 game for an over aggressive retaliation!!

By representing Flower you are allowed to evidence other similar incidents to question the length of the ban handed out to Flower and the consistency of bans, hence discussing LH ban!!

I am sure they could say LH hit Flower so he was provoked but it would stop there.

How long LH got banned for was irrelevant at the time because they would be looking at what Flower did, deciding what ban that merited and nothing else.

Any mention of LH's ban or anybody else's ban at Flowers hearing would have done no good as they would be judging this on it's "merits".

Wigan could appeal the ban on the grounds it was excessive and mention similar incidents then (like the punch on Green last year) but only a blithering idiot would bring up the length of LH's ban as a reason to reduce Flowers.

They aren't going to appeal so its irrelevant anyway but the idea you could say at the initial hearing "Yes I am guilty but don't ban me for long time because you only banned LH for one." is just naive.

Remember when Newton was banned and appealed the duration the ban was increased so IMO any attempt to influence the decision other than saying Flower was provoked was just asking for trouble.

[thegimble]

Because it has nothing to do with them.

They were there to represent Flower not complain about LH's ban.

Had they started to go down that road then I dare say they would have told to shut up.

The issue of LH's ban is something that could be brought up later if there is any attempt to improve the system as evidence the current one doesn't work but to start going on about LH's ban at Flowers hearing? Never going to happen.

I am sorry but it has everything to do with them if you are giving one player a 13 match ban for an over aggressive retaliation and another player 1 game for an over aggressive retaliation!!

By representing Flower you are allowed to evidence other similar incidents to question the length of the ban handed out to Flower and the consistency of bans, hence discussing LH ban!!

I am sure they could say LH hit Flower so he was provoked but it would stop there.

How long LH got banned for was irrelevant at the time because they would be looking at what Flower did, deciding what ban that merited and nothing else.

Any mention of LH's ban or anybody else's ban at Flowers hearing would have done no good as they would be judging this on it's "merits".

Wigan could appeal the ban on the grounds it was excessive and mention similar incidents then (like the punch on Green last year) but only a blithering idiot would bring up the length of LH's ban as a reason to reduce Flowers.

They aren't going to appeal so its irrelevant anyway but the idea you could say at the initial hearing "Yes I am guilty but don't ban me for long time because you only banned LH for one." is just naive.

Remember when Newton was banned and appealed the duration the ban was increased so IMO any attempt to influence the decision other than saying Flower was provoked was just asking for trouble.

What they could have done is said that BF was been treated differently to others by been given the severe penalty. When others were been given leniencey for deliberate attacks on players. He was therefore been treated differently basically he was not been treated equally. Especially since the downgraded LH and Westewood last season to suite an agenda.

Basically DaveO if IL wants to take this head on and go to the arbitration of sports he would win his case given that there is no way he got and impartial hearing and the bans others have got.

Westwood, LH, Rangi Chase etc there is a long list of players who have had punishments downgraded for various reasons. And remember LH did not get punished on the field by the ref so that was not taken into consideration either for BF who was.

Just the question would be does IL want to spend money in taking it further for what in effect would make no difference for BF ban which i have no issue with if others were penalised the same.

And every employee has the right to be treated the same.

[Nezza Faz]

I was driving home tonight and came across Radio 5 Live RU programme. Normally wouldn't have sullied my car's interior by listening to rah rah, but the voice of Mike Ford and Shaun Edwards kept me interested.

Most of the half hour was discussing Sam Burgess and the position he would play and whether he could make the England team after his injury. This kept my attention (saying they would deploy RL tactics) which would set aside normal ru plays, making the League style of play more successful, in their eyes.

Sorry to digress, but then amazingly, for the last 10+ minutes, they went onto the Ben Flower case. First of all Shaun said in no way could ru take the "high ground" morally as there had been notorious incidents in that game. Mike Ford agreed with this, as did the rest of the panel made up of union people. Shaun then compared his send off v. Australia at Wembley but said his was an instinctive head high shot on a side stepping player going in for a try. In the case of Ben, the initial punch "was sort of ok as a tit for tat", but then that was it, he then lost it completely with an OTT attack on a prone opponent on the ground.

He said perhaps the player was too wound up to realise the extent of his attack but added he thought that the RFL had got the decision correct, bearing in mind the hype of a Wigan-Saints derby, let alone a GF ! Said about 12 matches was right, and that the game was clean these days compared to the past, and the reason so much had been written on the subject because it was so rare an incident.

[TrueBlueWarrior]

I was driving home tonight and came across Radio 5 Live RU programme. Normally wouldn't have sullied my car's interior by listening to rah rah, but the voice of Mike Ford and Shaun Edwards kept me interested.

Most of the half hour was discussing Sam Burgess and the position he would play and whether he could make the England team after his injury. This kept my attention (saying they would deploy RL tactics) which would set aside normal ru plays, making the League style of play more successful, in their eyes.

Sorry to digress, but then amazingly, for the last 10+ minutes, they went onto the Ben Flower case. First of all Shaun said in no way could ru take the "high ground" morally as there had been notorious incidents in that game. Mike Ford agreed with this, as did the rest of the panel made up of union people. Shaun then compared his send off v. Australia at Wembley but said his was an instinctive head high shot on a side stepping player going in for a try. In the case of Ben, the initial punch "was sort of ok as a tit for tat", but then that was it, he then lost it completely with an OTT attack on a prone opponent on the ground.

He said perhaps the player was too wound up to realise the extent of his attack but added he thought that the RFL had got the decision correct, bearing in mind the hype of a Wigan-Saints derby, let alone a GF ! Said about 12 matches was right, and that the game was clean these days compared to the past, and the reason so much had been written on the subject because it was so rare an incident.

Very good post Nezza and agree with everything except I still think 12-13 games was a little harsh. However, did he say anything about LH's ban?

[Nezza Faz]

I was driving home tonight and came across Radio 5 Live RU programme. Normally wouldn't have sullied my car's interior by listening to rah rah, but the voice of Mike Ford and Shaun Edwards kept me interested.

Most of the half hour was discussing Sam Burgess and the position he would play and whether he could make the England team after his injury. This kept my attention (saying they would deploy RL tactics) which would set aside normal ru plays, making the League style of play more successful, in their eyes.

Sorry to digress, but then amazingly, for the last 10+ minutes, they went onto the Ben Flower case. First of all Shaun said in no way could ru take the "high ground" morally as there had been notorious incidents in that game. Mike Ford agreed with this, as did the rest of the panel made up of union people. Shaun then compared his send off v. Australia at Wembley but said his was an instinctive head high shot on a side stepping player going in for a try. In the case of Ben, the initial punch "was sort of ok as a tit for tat", but then that was it, he then lost it completely with an OTT attack on a prone opponent on the ground.

He said perhaps the player was too wound up to realise the extent of his attack but added he thought that the RFL had got the decision correct, bearing in mind the hype of a Wigan-Saints derby, let alone a GF ! Said about 12 matches was right, and that the game was clean these days compared to the past, and the reason so much had been written on the subject because it was so rare an incident.

Very good post Nezza and agree with everything except I still think 12-13 games was a little harsh. However, did he say anything about LH's ban?

Thanks for your post TBW, must admit I was a bit worried on here about posting from a rugby union programme !!

No, he didn't mention the length of LH's ban.