news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 978186.stm Proof that even the RL think Bailey is a wind up merchant. I think the £300 was punishment for missing with 2 of his punches.

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 978186.stm Proof that even the RL think Bailey is a wind up merchant. I think the £300 was punishment for missing with 2 of his punches.

Blimey, Wakey fan basking in the very tiniest amount of reflected 'glory' ever seen.

They're not wrong. He winds you up.

Very harsh by the RFL. Hull's chances of progressing have just been further diminished.

Yet more proof, if it were needed, that there are more kahoonas at a WI meeting than in the RFL.

So, having being sent off for bustin Baileys eye open, he was given a one match ban which was a total joke. Now he has had that revoked on appeal because 'only one of the punches thrown made contact'!!

Dont get me wrong, Bailey does get under other players skin, but so what, no rule against that. What, however, there is a rule against is hitting your opponent.

Constantly we ask for our referees to be braver and make the tough calls. Having made the tough call on Saturday night, and the right one, the RFL then cr*p all over it.

The bit I really dont understand was that yesterday he had his hearing and got 1 match. Today he's appealed and had it revoked. What new evidence could possibly have come to light in 24 hours that made the RFL change their mind?

Answers on a postcard....

so lets have a look at this....


Bailey had "no case to answer" according to the RFL on Monday, fair enough ok


now Radford get his ban quashed as he was "provoked"




who did the provoking if said player was cleared by the RFL on Monday?

Couldn't care less, we benefited from TMFMISL's excellent work on Saturday, job done, we can't have the cake and all the icing too.

No worries he's still sh#t and they'll still lose to HKR on Saturday!

If you're looking for consistency watch this week's Boots 'N All if you get a chance.

exactly, he did his job superbly, however in this light I think the RFL may start looking at his incidents a bit more but as we know, he doesnt do anything wrong

It must have been a bit of an embarrassment though, having to admit that with your opponent helpless on the floor you could only manage to hit him the once from your windmill arms, I could understand if TMFMISL had been ducking and weaving like Muhammad Ali ...

When the case was heard, FC argued that Radford had 'already more or less served a game ban as he was sent off so early'. This to me is the only reason why the ban would have been overturned once the RFL have thought about their decision. To me, FC's argument is complete tosh. Any of the resident anoraks know if the Appeal Committee and Disciplinary Committee are totally separate or do the same people sit on them? If it was the latter, I wouldn't be at all surprised. www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=2217

When the case was heard, FC argued that Radford had 'already more or less served a game ban as he was sent off so early'. This to me is the only reason why the ban would have been overturned once the RFL have thought about their decision. To me, FC's argument is complete tosh. Any of the resident anoraks know if the Appeal Committee and Disciplinary Committee are totally separate or do the same people sit on them? If it was the latter, I wouldn't be at all surprised. www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=2217

Seems reasonable to me. He's already cost them the game, a top 4 spot, and consigned them to an early playoff exit against KR. I think sending off could be deemed "sufficient" in this case.

Highlighting that the softcock was "provoked" by contact from Bailey deemded earlier to represent "no case to answer" and that even with an imobile, prone traget he was only able to land one punch just rubs salt into the wound futher.

They might as well have said: "Radford is a well known softcock, who rarely puts anything about. We know he punches like an old woman without her glasses (not one from Hull though who would have hit Bailey with her shoe), and we know he spent all Saturday crying over being sent of by that nasty Mr Smith. We are also aware on the panel that Radford can be provoked by fluff from his belly button. Can Mr Radfords Mummy please take him home now, he can play with the other boys next week, and he can even bring his special ball if he wants"

To be fair, Bailey got off with it in the last minute of the Challenge Cup final, so there can be no complaints.

to be fair to Radford, he has led a hard life, he could quite easily be Thackery's look-a-like

Hey, Im not saying a lot doesn't go unpunished, Im just saying that having had a ref actually do the right thing the RFL then bottle it. I just dont get why we can't have a panel that can make tough decisions.

Quote ="tvoc"If you're looking for consistency watch this week's Boots 'N All if you get a chance.'" Here's the RFL's version of events. www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=2210 Funny really, because someone's uppercuts appeared to me to be connecting quite nicely with Dobson's mellon. I think it's about time the RFL Disciplinary panel of David Blunkett, Ray Charles and Andrea Bocelli were stood down.

Quote ="tvoc"If you're looking for consistency watch this week's Boots 'N All if you get a chance.'" Here's the RFL's version of events. www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=2210 Funny really, because someone's uppercuts appeared to me to be connecting quite nicely with Dobson's mellon. I think it's about time the RFL Disciplinary panel of David Blunkett, Ray Charles and Andrea Bocelli were stood down.

Quote ="tvoc"Here's the RFL's version of events. www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=2210 Funny really, because someone's uppercuts appeared to me to be connecting quite nicely with Dobson's mellon. I think it's about time the RFL Disciplinary panel of David Blunkett, Ray Charles and Andrea Bocelli were stood down.'" Fair point mate and another scenario that highlights "incompetence and inconsistency" at Red Hall.

Quote ="tvoc"Here's the RFL's version of events. www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=2210 Funny really, because someone's uppercuts appeared to me to be connecting quite nicely with Dobson's mellon. I think it's about time the RFL Disciplinary panel of David Blunkett, Ray Charles and Andrea Bocelli were stood down.'" Fair point mate and another scenario that highlights "incompetence and inconsistency" at Red Hall.

I thought they were all touch judges from the early 80's?

YEAH !Wakey till he die's looks like wakey is gonna die before him

Any chance you could post your inflammatory remarks under your regular username you softcock coward?

Some how I can't see you saying that to Lee's face, Radders is one of the last people you would pick a fight with on or off a rugby field.

Can't argue with that.

By modern game standards he's a hard nut.

His one game ban over-turned? Fair enough.

With his early red card I thought he wouldn't get a ban to start with.

Radford cost his time, you can argue that's punishment enough.

He also has to live with being shown his first red card in a tantrum like manner. TMFMISL got under the skin, shock!!!!!!!!

He also aided in costing his side 2 league positions. Well done Radders.

So in future if anyone other Super League player wants to attack TMFMISL - punch him 'once' and then swing a few air-shots and you'll be just fine.

If TMFMISL doesn't get yer, Burrow will.