POTENTIAL BANS

[100% Warrior]

What a surprise ... not!!!

3 of our lads get banned whilst only 1 from Stains cops a ban, even worse one of the instigators of the whole flare up gets away scot free!!

Think we may have found a couple of new "Sean Long" figures the next time Stains roll into town. LMS and Magennis are bound to cop some flack from the speccies after last weekends shenanigans.

[captinjack]

And low and behold McCarthy-Scarsbrook is not even cited. Bet he would have been if he had been wearing a Wigan shirt.

[100% Warrior]

Apparently, he was cited but amazingly was found to have no case to answer as he didn't throw a punch. What about him rubbing his head in Hock's face how the panel can't see that as provoking Hock and instigating the flare up is beyond belief.

Who was the viewing panel? Arsene Wenger, Mr Magoo and Eli from Last of the Summer Wine?

[Kittwazzer]

On SSN, SW says they will talk to the solicitors to discuss appealing Hock's 2 matches!

[trotski_tgwu]

i had a look at josies link for the disaplinary can someone tell me what the initial before nfa stand for? MRP it is but not a clue what it stand for :conf:

[bootsnall]

Saints have targeted HOCK for the last 3 games, supporting the biased Saints fans viewpoint that "hock is just a thug" as per comments on the Code 13 website. In reality, he is a hard man and has got a record, but in the last 3 games v Saints, including the one on Sunday, he has shown remarkable discipline. Truthfully, he threw two punches to get pretty boy McCarthy-Scarsbrook out of his face and that was it. He didn't lose it or carry it on and was in control. He is playing fine second row rugby and is a class act with plenty pace. Where will McCarthy-Scarsbrook be when the Aussies are here? I don't think he'll be mixing it in the front row then. HOCK will! The conversation between Ben THALER and his two touch judges on Sky was a joy. Judge and Jury! THALER had already agreed to send HOCK but completed his decision when he spoke to the touch judges. To send three off killed the game whereas a bit of honesty between them admitting that they didn't really see everything would have been appreciated and they had options to place on report, yellow card, etc. The trouble is once the red card is shown, there's no getting away from it. The clubs rarely fight decisions. I'd be happy to see us fight the HOCK ban for once. I'm not anti THALER either. He had a good game overall.

[DaveO]

Hock and Tuson Suspended


I'm confused with the gradings of these offences & the resulting punishment?

Tuson's grade C was the more serious charge but he got a lesser ban than Hock as like Mossop he had the choice to pleaded guilty and take the one match ban despite the minimum ban for a grade C offence being two matches. Hock didn't have the same choice due to his record so ended up banned more matches for an offence deemed less serious.

Now that is a joke and given he was actually sent off in the game the punishment is very OTT in my opinion. I think the club should appeal.

[bootsnall]

Another big problem within the RFL and the other tribunal (Sky Sports) is that they mention about how a player "retaliates". What TUSON did was not retaliation. He didn't think about his response, then decide to punch a Saints player because he thought he would get him back. What he did was defend himself. This was a decision made instantly because he was defending himself. There is a basis for this in law, not rugby rules! The refereeing decisions should consider this and if they make the best decision they can, based on real time events, that's fine, but the RFL should certainly watch the incident slow time and consider the lawful right to defend oneself. Let us remember that these players are all 16st athletes and one punch could cause serious and potentially deadly consequences. Therefore if you catch a punch (like TUSON did) and react instantly, you defend yourself. If someone has their head in your face whilst holding you in close, the next expectation is a head butt in the face, so HOCK was right to punch just twice, to try and create some space and basically say "get off me". As I said previously, he was cool afterwards and didn't carry it on. If you use well known search engines to check for 'self defence' you may agree with me and I think that the RFL should consider it as opposed to pressurising players to plead guilty and receive a lesser ban. As I said, I'd be happy for us to challenge HOCK's ban, legally.

[Kittwazzer]

Hock and Tuson Suspended


I'm confused with the gradings of these offences & the resulting punishment?

Tuson's grade C was the more serious charge but he got a lesser ban than Hock as like Mossop he had the choice to pleaded guilty and take the one match ban despite the minimum ban for a grade C offence being two matches. Hock didn't have the same choice due to his record so ended up banned more matches for an offence deemed less serious.

Now that is a joke and given he was actually sent off in the game the punishment is very OTT in my opinion. I think the club should appeal.

That B/C confused me as well and I think an appeal is warranted on that alone!

[DaveO]

That B/C confused me as well and I think an appeal is warranted on that alone!

Although I am pleased Tuson only got a one match ban it's a bit daft when you think about it.

He pleaded guilty to an offence that carried a minimum ban of two matches (grade C). So that gave him a lesser ban that isn't even part of the tariff for the offence because he copped a plea. That doesn't seem logical to me.

Hock on the other hand has been given the maximum ban the tariff for his offence carries.

So we have a player guilty of a lesser offence on a two match ban and a player guilty of a more serious offence on a one match ban. Stupid.