*Steps up onto soapbox*

So Chase got three games for breaking Ropati's jaw. What a joke.

When is the punishment going to fit the crime?

Ropati is out for around 12 weeks, not to mention the unecessary pain of Chases actions.

Fair enough, RL is a tough game and players get hurt but what Chase did was both deliberate and stupid.

Its about the RL took a tough stance on this to stamp out this type of idiotic, and quite frankly, thuggish behaviour. In my view, the offending player should be banned for as long as the player is out, so in this case 12 weeks and not 3. If the injured player suffers a setback in his recovery, tough, the offending player stays on the sidelines.

Id even be tempted to take it one step further. The £300 fine also lacks bottle. The player, whilst sitting on the sidelines should not be paid. I know in practice this would be very difficult if not impossible to enforce but its about ensuring players are deterred from these actions.

*Steps off soapbox*

Suspensions should never be the same length as the injury because of the scenarios where an unlucky clumsy tackle ends a career, or a malicous tackle causes no injury.

The system we have in place is the correct one, but it could maybe do with some tweaking as it does seem like some offenses seem relatively leniently handled when compared against others

What if player A were to deliberately attempt to injure player B, with the resulting injury on player B being career ending.

Would player A then be banned from ever playing the game again?

IMO a 3 game suspension is too short, I think a suspension of 6 games would be more suitable.

If it had been Ropati breaking Chase's jaw, I pretty damn sure the suspension would have been longer than 3 games.

The RFU recently banned a Northampton player for 32 weeks for deliberately causing damage to an oppoents arm, resulting in a broken elbow

Chase deliverately forearm smashed an opponent in the face, causing broken jaw and gets the same ban as a player who pushed a clumsy referee out of his way.

To the RFL it seems to depend who you are, if you are the Man Of Steel or Sam Tomkins you get off lightly.

But God help you if your name is Ryan Bailey

How long did Moriarty get for his infamous assault in front of the North Stand? That offence was very similar and I'm pretty sure he copped a much longer ban. One for TVOC perhaps?

This disparity isn't new.I have memories of Hanley when at Leeds getting his jaw broken by(I think) Andy Dannatt at THE BOULEVARD and the penalty was again a fraction of Hanley's absence.

Ropati would have a strong case for civil compensation against cas tigers and Chase. Maybe its time for someone to take a stand if the RL wont hand out sentences which are sufficiently punitive to act as a deterrent. Chase actions IMO went far beyond the usual risks associated with playing a contact sport

Dannatt it was.

Actually no he doesn't, if Featherstone don't have insurance covering players wages through injury it would be them who would have to face legal action.

Why are people still saying it was deliberate too? It was well established first contact is with his upper arm, and the RFL also agreed with the minority that it was indeed reckless and not intentional.

As for ban people as long as the other player is injured....what if the player doesn't get injured? For example David Howell biting someone last year, or in your world does biting someone not warrant a ban?

What's being asked for here isn't a "punishment to fit the crime" but a "punishment to fit the result"
Whilst the three match ban for that tackle seems weak, the crime was a high tackle with an elbow, not breaking a players jaw.

Looked to me like a straight elbow to the jaw, with no attempt at a tackle or shoulder charge.

Quote ="Richie"the crime was a high tackle with an elbow'" Well, first contact appeared to be with his upper arm, not elbow and that is also what the RFL saw: www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3553 If it was a straight out & out elbow like what McGoldrick did when he was the ball carrier, then I'd agree with you 3 matches isn't enough. However, Chase has got 3 matches for the same offence Sam Moa got 1 game for.

Quote ="Richie"the crime was a high tackle with an elbow'" Well, first contact appeared to be with his upper arm, not elbow and that is also what the RFL saw: www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3553 If it was a straight out & out elbow like what McGoldrick did when he was the ball carrier, then I'd agree with you 3 matches isn't enough. However, Chase has got 3 matches for the same offence Sam Moa got 1 game for.

I think this perhaps is more like one for Sherlock Holmes

so cas arent vicariously liable for chases' actions? On what basis do you consider [iMattis v Pollock[/i wont apply? Or prehaps you dont know what your talking about. For the record the RFL have a PL policy which covers all member clubs but it would be Cas who would be the defendants. it would be unlikley Cas' insurers would seek indemnity from chase even if he has a reasonable actions clause written into his contract. as a rule insurers dont seek to recover from the negligent employee unless the actions are considered reckless or their has been collusion.

[size=170TAXI[/size

Quote ="Gronk!"Well, first contact appeared to be with his upper arm, not elbow and that is also what the RFL saw: www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3553 If it was a straight out & out elbow like what McGoldrick did when he was the ball carrier, then I'd agree with you 3 matches isn't enough. However, Chase has got 3 matches for the same offence Sam Moa got 1 game for.'" i am the only one who missed the game were Moa jumped into a tackle leading with his elbow (forearm if you're very lenient)?

Quote ="Gronk!"Well, first contact appeared to be with his upper arm, not elbow and that is also what the RFL saw: www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3553 If it was a straight out & out elbow like what McGoldrick did when he was the ball carrier, then I'd agree with you 3 matches isn't enough. However, Chase has got 3 matches for the same offence Sam Moa got 1 game for.'" i am the only one who missed the game were Moa jumped into a tackle leading with his elbow (forearm if you're very lenient)?

Didn't Robbie Mears get damages from Sunny Nickle for a broken face?

Also if its a case of you are out aslong as the injuryed player, what would be the case if Ropati was fine? Same hit but resulted in no injury, would Chase have got a 0 game ban?

That's one of many problems with that concept.

David Howell didn't injure anyone when he bit them, does that mean he shouldn't have been banned?
Gareth Hock didn't injure anyone when he gouged them, so I guess that didn't deserve a ban either?

Paul Moriarty received an 8 match ban (Hugh Waddell missed the following 4 Leeds matches.)



Andy Dannatt received an 8 match ban (Ellery Hanley missed the following 13 Leeds matches.)

Oh God you've unleashed that Gronk gomper on our board now!

So do we conclude that the RFl has become totally spineless over the years, or is it down to them being more able to judge on the basis of video evidence? I suspect it may be a bit of both.

What I am convinced of is that if this had happened in the NRL or Yawnion the ban would have been closer to the 8 matches that used to be par for this sort of offence.

He's on a mission to post at least 100 (miserable) apologies for Chase on every board on RLFans.com