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

Thanks CLEARWING and TVOC for the clarification................

You are so gonna get sued by him for that comment

Isn't Ropati part time? Does the insurance cover wages from another job other than his players wages?


His upper arm? So not a head clash then? Or Chase's shoulder?

Careful, that in itself is a potentially libellous comment. To repay the favour though Rangi Chase will be putting the case together on behalf of Gronk.

How many actual matches did that ban cover?

The present system is fine but they should add a match or two to each of the tarrifs for foul play, IMO. And chase is a nasty who did something similar to Sinfield last year. You can tell he's a when his mates in an international try and injure him. He'll get his.

I still think the RFL should incorporate more from the NRL system, where players get points for offences, which rather like those on your drivers' licence accumulate. So a player could face a ban for persistent infrigements individually not worth a ban, or find they increase their suspension if they do something worse. Similarly a player who regularly makes head high tackles (as did Morley in the NRL) will quite soon find themselves staring at longer bans than other players. The points would be valid for a rolling 2-year period.

On the penalties for individual offences, I think the RFL really struggles with what might be termed 'extreme' offences, excepting ones not under their control such as drugs bans. In the NRL they have a category of very serious offences (can't remember the name) that don't have the usual rules applied, and are viewed individually - these offences being beyond the range covered by the usual criteria. This enables them to potentially administer much longer bans for what are deemed very serious offences. IMO just like refs sometimes put players on report for what are sending off offences, the judiciary sometimes uses the grading system to hide offences that should be treated differently.

I agree that the RU case cited was one that suited everybody except the injured player. The RFU could claim to be tough, citing '32 weeks', whereas the actual ban in playing terms was far less severe. IIRC I've seen this type of suspension happen in RU over here as well.

BTW do people see it as wrong to take into account the actual damage done by foul play? I don't have a problem with damage being taken into account. Off the field if you punch someone your penalty will vary dependent on the damage done - from nothing through ABH, GBH, manslaughter etc. Why would offences committed on the field not be treated similarly?

I agree BR with regards to the damage done been considered when the punishment is decided.

Playing devil's advocate here - this is not my view but the RFL has also to take into account welfare of the club. If Rhangi Chase was suspended for 8 weeks - the minimum in my view - that would put an end to any hope Castleford have of making the play offs. It would also have a financially detrimental effect on the club as fans would not want to watch a losing side. I would imagine Castleford's finances are not far removed from Bradford's and even a small loss of revenue could be catastrophic.