So far this season we have had players suspended when ref did not give a pen;when he sent a diff player off; when a pen has been given but not put on report. Every time we have recd a suspension via a review at Red Hall - is it coincidence or a conspiracy. Last week we had no-one up before the beak but they sure have made up for it with Bateman.

How many players have we had suspended this season?

Absolutely ridiculous, he shouldn't be facing a ban at all but 3 games is just a joke.

Can't believe so many people are up in arms about this, very reckless what should have been dealt with by childs at the time, simply becouse it's not called up every time it's done in a match doesn't make it ok, funny how it's the same people who's bitching about batement were bitching about bridge maybe not being banned! Can't have it both ways!

Batemens a young kid with a hell of a future in the game, daft decisions this early in his career need ironing out as soon as Possible, feilden at a similar sort of age was also called for tackle technique, and I can remember everyone screaming foul of that too, helped him no end though!

I am sure Fielden got fined for running with his knees raised. The fans paid the fine if I recall.

Summerising of the hearing

The committee are of the opinion that this type of technique that the player has used is dangerous and has the potential for serious injury. The committee note that there is not a clear guilty plea however the club do admit that the player has been placed in a vulnerable position so credit is given in that regard. The player does not have a great disciplinary record for someone of a young age however the committee feel that a 3 match suspension and a £300 fine is appropriate.

Your club acknowledge its dangerous so why cant you guys

If you look at the Bateman tackle in total isolation, it is a bad one and at the time I was expecting Child to take action. I thought it was dangerous and unnneccesary.

The problem is that the way Rl is officiated is not clear and sometimes when it is clear it is ridiculous.

How can being the third person from your team in 10 minutes to be offside warrant a 10 minute sin bin, yet committing a high tackle or running in to a fight simply gets a penalty?

The question of intent simply masks the issue. Intent cannot normally be proven for on field incidents, unless there is an admission.

If it had been done to one of ours, we'd be crying out like the wire fans are!

someone needs to have a wordwith JOhn!

Not surprised with the verdict.

Bateman's going to have start playing touch and pass in future the way he keeps getting targetted by the officials.

This just made me laugh it is controlled aggression he needs westwood has learnt this so has morley

Bring back the biff!

Exactly! they learnt and so will john, all these people saying he needs to be sorted, and on other forums saying he needs to change his attitude is absurd he is an 18 year old kid playing for the club he loves and wants to make an impression maybe he is a touch over eager at the moment but it took them two a hell of a lot longer to calm down than it will john, with experience and maturity it will sort itself out.

I wouldn't. I would be like all the Wire fans were at the time. Oblivious to any offence.

didn't seem like much at the time.. but when you watch it back you can clearly see that its a crusher tackle.. im sure the lad didnt mean to cause injury with it.. and its probably down to poor technique rather than malice.

But the rules are the rules for a reason... its those types of tackles which could lead to a broken neck.... if a warrington player would have done that i would have no qualms whatsoever with a 3 match ban.

I thought Jeffries was more at fault for grabbing the back of his head/neck in the tackle.

Anyway it's done now, so let's hope the 9 fit/not banned players we have left will do the business next weekend. I would play the cleaners in the pack, and move Koppy to FB and Burgess on the wing outside Manu. Then I'd close a couple of turnstiles at 3pm sharp and them old lads can go on the bench. They could have their kit on under their coats.

Jeffries and Kearney at prop - London Broncos/Harlequins/Fulham* - * delete as applicable - don't realise what is going on till half time by which time they are 50 points down.

That is one thing you can always say with certainty about the Bulls - we never do things the easy way!

as i have said previously there is no intent it is just poor technique, which needs to be drilled out of him now before it becomes a habbit. At the end of the day he is only 18 and young enough to learn and i am sure he will gain more out of being punished for it than just letting it slide.

Whatever.....

This is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on here.

Have a word with yourself mate!!!
The difference is clear...bateman was completing a tackle( I agree it "could" have been worse than it actually was )..But Chris Bridge Intentionally struck an opposing player with the elbow, 1 game ban to batemans 3 games...Joke!!!

The judiciary is rightly taking into account the potential seriousness of the injury. If you forearm smash someone in the face as they're running, its virtually impossible to break their neck (as some have bizarrely suggested). You also can't break someone's neck by whacking them in the face with a forearm when they're lying on the ground.

What CAN break someone's neck is landing on their head from even a relatively low height with their bodyweight behind it, or having someone else land on their head to the same effect. The bodyweight makes all the difference to the force applied, combined with the direction of the impact.

I thought Bridge struck the ball.

Interesteing to see if McIlorum gets a three match ban for his tackle lat night. Didn't look any different to Batemans.

Though exactly the same. Also seems the grapple tackle was legal last night.

Disciplinary after the London match:



that's 2 out of 3 "no charges" in the last couple of weeks for this one, based on nothing else than the same phrase "makes room for opponent's head".

So you CAN make "dangerous contact" yet not even be charged. Increasingly weird.