LMAO.

a few have questioned smiths decision at the time but to me its a no brainer, he sees 4 punches to a prone oppenent who then gets up with blood pouring from his head
if thats not a red then you might as well let anything go

i can see why he won his appeal as he did only connect with 1 punch and it looked a lot worse than at first viewing
radford will be targeted in the next game and next season he will have mason trying to wind him up too so that should be fun
yes bailey winds people up but thats part of his job, a lot of props are sent out to be nasty and provoke silly reactions but its up to the opponents to just not react

it would be interesting to know how many penalties bailey draws from opponents

7,863 to date.

...and penalties incurred by TMFMISL

about 6


An ace at his job.

I bet they will not

3 of Rovers (Aussies )pack have tried that and they came unstuck

If it was the other way round i'm sure bailey would have had ban upheld or extended

Why?

He's had many a hearing go his way.

Someone should print out a copy of all these Bailey threads and get them bound. If I were Bailey that would be a lovely memento post-retirement from the game. There's some serious (unintended) humour here.

I would if I were bailey

Not tragetting you specifically Neil, just yours was the last on this vein I read.

Lots have said that because he was sent off early he doesn't deserve a ban! What a load of codswollop. The time of the game should be irrelevant, as should be the fact he only landed one punch, he hardly deserves leniancy because he can't aim.

What if his one punch had broken Baileys jaw and ended his season, would he have deserved a larger ban then? I suspect so, but that doesn't make sense. I remember the days when intent was all you needed, and that is how it should be.

Also, one game (overturned) for punching someone, splitting their eye open and then throwing his toys all over the pitch is ridiculous. If the RFL wants to stamp this type of rubbish out they need to be firm.

Why? He has them in his pocket.

I agree with that. Think the RFL has unsurprisingly show a lack of bottle. People saying a yellow card would have been sufficient are blinkered by a hatred of Bailey. Radford takes exception to the elbow, gets up, goes round the front of Bailey and puts several punches on the lad while he's on his hands and knees. Had it been the other way around the gompers from the other clubs would be calling for him to be banned for life.

Should have been 2 game ban minimum. I like a bit of biff, but an almost unprovoked attack of a player on the floor should have been more harshly dealt with by the RFL, and they should have supported the ref in his bold decision.

I'm al for the biff. But not so much when one of the people involved is on the deck already. That's not cricket.

I'm still not totally sure I need to see a ban. I'd rather see stuff like that carded in the match so that the team sinned against gains some advantage from it. Not so fussed about the ban. Especially since every time I see Radford play these days he has a knock-on-a-thon, there seems to be more disadvantage to Hull in having him available for selection.

part of me thinks if Bailey had gone toe-to-toe with Radford both would have been in the cooler for 10mins however the masterstroke by Bailey to stay on ground level meant the attack looked much worse meaning Radford had to go

That's the point though. Bailey doesn't go toe-to-toe with anyone. He hangs about in the back ground and waits till there are enough people in front of him so there is no chance of him getting involved, and then pretends to get angry. Always seems to get held back by someone though doesn't he? Never really gets involved in the rough stuff, unless it's with a cheap shot on a samller player already grounded.

There was no point Bailey reacting when Radford was hitting him, let Radford do the dirty stuff so he does enough to be sent off. Now the bit after again was a piece of genius, stand up and show what Radford had done was only give him a cut. Course he was held back, why would you want a cruical member of the team to get in [iany[/i trouble?

You mean he doesn't get sent off in crucial games like Radford did?

It was adjudged a Grade A offence by the RFL disciplinary committee. Given the range of sanctions available he received the maximum penalty available to the committee.



I don't see what more they could do, given they applied the maximum sanction for a Grade A offence.

What I firstly fail to understand, is how within 24 hours, there can have been a total turnaround. The reason seems to be (from the report) that Lee had already served a one match ban, due to being sent off so early. Surely this was considered in the initial assessment. I feel this is totally unjust anyway. It shouldn't matter when a player goes off. If it's a ban, it's a ban. Not a sending off.


However, what worries me the most is the following statement: 'It is not disputed that Lee punched Bailey repeatedly but all but one of those punches made no contact'. How is that ok? Just because they didn't make contact. What if they had and broke his jaw? It seems that there is no punishment for intent, only injury caused. This to me is ridiculous. This needs to be stamped out before it happens and causes a serious injury. As the governing body, only the RFL can do this.

Ok TVOC, they applied the max penalty according to what? Their own rules? What does that say?

It all comes back down to the same thing. The RFL are a bunch of bottlers. Its time they go tough.

Its perhaps worth saying as well that this isn't just about Radford - its a general observation.

Guys, why are you all getting so angry? It was only Ryan Bailey!!!

You are a softcock.

What it says to me is they graded the offence and applied the stiffest sentence available to them.

If they got tough, Bailey wouldn't have been available at the KC for Radford to fire at, Senior would probably have been banned after the quarter final with Wigan, Ablett could have been ruled out for the season, that kind of tough?

The way I see it, Radford can count himself unlucky to have been sent off in the first place and Bailey can count himself lucky his song and dance pantomime routine didn't earn himself a spell in the sin bin.