Paul Cooke handed one match ban...

[robjoenz]

...for headbutting.

In my opinion the RFL are still being far too lenient with all types of punishment. Only three games for Reilly's use of the elbow. That was an awful challenge and would have got 10 or 12 weeks in NRL. About time the Disciplinary Committee did something about it.

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:
...for headbutting.

In my opinion the RFL are still being far too lenient with all types of punishment. Only three games for Reilly's use of the elbow. That was an awful challenge and would have got 10 or 12 weeks in NRL. About time the Disciplinary Committee did something about it.

I think thay are afraid to.

I can remember when a high tackle here gained an automatic 8 match ban. Joe Lydon copped one for what Monie considered one of the best tackles he had ever seen (the point being even 50/50 tackles got the full ban).

However I doubt if the RFL tried to introduce that again the players union would stand for it.

There must be a reason for these lenient bans and I can only think the threat of a legal challenge lies behind it.

Dave

[robjoenz]

Please excuse my ignorance, but how can you legally challenge a punishment handed out by the governing body as a consequence of your own actions?

We see far too many high shots missed by referees. We see the worst offenders given 1-3 game bans. Surely it would act as a deterent to players if they handed out 10 game bans. The players would still get paid afterall and would only have themselves to blame!

Continuing in this way will allow players to bully the RFL into getting away with what they like. The rules will become more relaxed (like with forward passes) and more people will suffer serious injury.

[gab0512]

I think it is more to do with not wanting to ban a player from an important cup game. We had the benefit when JS wasn't banned for an off the ball challenge at Leeds, enabling him to play at Saints in the cup. We did have Danny banned for 2 games for what I thought was really inocuous at Salford.

The problem with disciplinary decisions, it will always be emotive - even with set penalties. If the ruling was High tackle 3 game ban - use of elbow 2 games etc etc. You will see varying degrees of bad challenges under each ruling. Then the argument will be - his challenge was nowhere near as bad as that one, but the ban is the same.

Overall I think the judiciary get it right 8 times out of 10, and I think this is the best we can hope for. We on this board will all have different opinions, as is right. What we shouldn't expect is anything different from a panel of 'experts' who determine the severity of a breach of the law.

[robjoenz]

gab0512 posted:
Overall I think the judiciary get it right 8 times out of 10, and I think this is the best we can hope for. We on this board will all have different opinions, as is right. What we shouldn't expect is anything different from a panel of 'experts' who determine the severity of a breach of the law.

I see what you're saying but the NRL have a much stricter RL judicial system and they have a much tidier game with less infringements. That has to say something.

[Fraggle]

gab0512 posted:
We had the benefit when JS wasn't banned for an off the ball challenge at Leeds, enabling him to play at Saints in the cup.

That was a benefit to us??!!

The problem with disciplinary decisions, it will always be emotive - even with set penalties. If the ruling was High tackle 3 game ban - use of elbow 2 games etc etc. You will see varying degrees of bad challenges under each ruling. Then the argument will be - his challenge was nowhere near as bad as that one, but the ban is the same.

Overall I think the judiciary get it right 8 times out of 10, and I think this is the best we can hope for. We on this board will all have different opinions, as is right. What we shouldn't expect is anything different from a panel of 'experts' who determine the severity of a breach of the law.

I much prefer the NRL version, with different offenses, and different severity of offenses, attracting points like your driving licence, and when you get x number of points you get banned. It means more work for the authorities, but means that persistent offenders wouldn't be able to get away with an "on-report" every 2-3 weeks. It's perhaps significant that Greg McAllum's in charge of this area Down Under, the officials seemed to be more consistent when he was also running them in the UK and he was prepared to answer questions from speccies about individual refereeing decisions. That's all gone since Mr Scummings took over.

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:
Please excuse my ignorance, but how can you legally challenge a punishment handed out by the governing body as a consequence of your own actions?

It is the automatic 8 week side of it that they could not justify these days. Arbitrary punishment regardless of how serius an offence it was.

We see far too many high shots missed by referees. We see the worst offenders given 1-3 game bans. Surely it would act as a deterent to players if they handed out 10 game bans. The players would still get paid afterall and would only have themselves to blame!

I agree and I don't know why they can't judge each case on its merits more than they seem to do.

Continuing in this way will allow players to bully the RFL into getting away with what they like. The rules will become more relaxed (like with forward passes) and more people will suffer serious injury.

The rules are alrady too vague compared to what they used to be 10 years ago in many aspects of the game, e.g. this stupid dominant tackle rule. Forward passes seem ignored now. So I think it is just down to a gradual increase in the incompetance of those in charge.

It is ex-ref Cummins so it is no surprise.

Dave

[willie c]

and as eddie as just pointed out brad drew should have got 10 mins for hitting cooke after the head butt

[mrs_carney]

I think the NRL's way of dealing with these incidents is better, they seem to have far less one/two match bans and more lengthy bans which gives the player time to actually realise what they've done. I don't understand how you can be found guilty of something and then not get banned i.e Seuseu. If we gave out harder punishments then there would be less bans, one or two matches for a side with a big squad wont make that much of a difference, like leeds or bradford. It also won't make much difference to the player, its just like being rested for a week. Also something stevo said about past records making appearences before the RFL go in your favour, this shouldnt matter whther you've been banned for one match or twenty matches; on the pitch you've still done something unprofessional that needs dealing with. A lot of on the pitch incidents go un-noticed for all teams, some which you'd think they should be sin binned for. I definately think that the touch judges should get involved more on the pitch, they cant seriously not see all the times players who kick the ball are taken out. Our general punishment system needs reviewing so that all punishements are equal for whatever reason your being banned, its hardly fair if someone gets banned for one match and someone gets banned for three for the same sort of incident, although bans longer than two matches never seem to happen over here.

[wiresphs]

:conf: I cannot for the life of me understand why the RL do not have bans set in stone for each and every rule, as and when it is broken. In Aus you have a damn good idea what your ban will be before you even go up in front of the disciplinary panel and should you try to appeal, there is a good chance that, if you do not have a cast iron case, your suspension would be extended. Clubs and players seem to accept that when you do wrong you take the consequenses on the chin,(make no bones about it, a player knows when he is about to commit an offence such as headbutting, there is nothing accidental about it).
I accept that cookes previous record is excellent, but the lad still done wrong didnt he? What would have happened if he had smashed Drews nose, jaw or cheekbone? Would he still have been looking at a 1 match ban, simply because he has been a good boy in the past, while Drew spends the next 4-6 weeks sat on the sidelines nursing his boat race?
If there is one area of our sport that is totally "FARCICAL" and indeed, at times makes us look down right "STUPID", its our disciplinary procedures and the fools that sit on the panel! Sort it out before someone loses their livelihood, "OR WORSE"! :sly: