So Gronkie, you still pretending you work in the legal trade - or - did you really come to this conclusion at the "home" you share with 15 other people.

Sue me.

Someone on Twitter saying 2 games...and is going apoplectic about it.

Do let us know if you stumble across someone else having an opinion on Twitter.

No matter how many times you say it, it's a stupid thing to say.

It was a shocking challenge and deserves a ban, but the judiciary isn't set up to ban people for the length of the injuries a player causes (deliberately or not), it's set up to dissuade people from foul play. Hopefully Chase gets a punishment worthy of the crime (based on previous form, I'd guess he's looking at three games out).

It's a tough break for Ropati, but he should be insured and his losses covered. Unfortunately that's the game of rugby league, and in a week or two we'll all be talking about another horrific injury. Don't be an idiot just because it's the flavour of the week.

Can't be bothered to read 30 pages of Gronk threatening legal action but his RFL charge apparently carries a 2/3 game ban.
Can the RFL not later decide to increase this do to the severity of an incident etc.?

There is NO HEAD clash you thick get

Is Rangi taking him to court?
Really Rangi should take Ben Thaler to court, ultimately it was his fault. If he had only reffed the game exactly the way Cas wanted it then Fev wouldn't have been winning and Chase wouldn't have needed to put a big hit in to try and get his team back into the match.

Scum that Ben Thaler. Sub-human scum.

Really? So, how does it compare with your efforts in 2009:





How much trouble did your delusions get the website into there, then?

High, late & dangerous = opinion, and considering it made a player have a seizure, you'd expect it to be right too, wouldn't you?

Whereas imploring for someone to be deported or thrown into jail for a premeditated attack etc can be proven false and to be libelous.

Also, how sad of you to go through that many posts.

Before you start on that tack, you'd best brush up on libel law

3 games according the the SL facebook feed.

Fair enough.

please tell me you're lieing about working in law.
please

Dear lord.

Hardly. It's about half the length it should be IMO, and I'm still disgusted that the panel chose to consider this as a 'reckless' challenge rather than a deliberate strike.

Pathetic.

3 matches sends out the wrong message on so many levels, should've been double.

They were probably worried about getting sued

What's that? The minority were right and agree with the RFL that it was indeed reckless? Who'd have thought that

I'd have thought they were going to give him the death penalty based on what the experts on here were saying!

Spot on. Pathetic, gutless decision from them again.

Again, it begs the question: what [idoes[/i a player have to do to get more than three matches? Bring a knife onto the pitch and shank someone?

At least!! The RFL are pathetic!

Not realy I covered it yesterday.
Clearly they think forearm smashes are just mistimed/reckless tackles.
Much in the same way as Richard Silverwood thinks it is ok to spear tackle someone as long as it isn't head first.
Gutless the lot of em TBH.

It was a premeditated attack. He meant to hit the player as hard as he could. Whether or not it was within the rules of the game is a different issue. The RFL have decided that he meant to attack the player in a premeditated way, but within the rules of the game, but executed it badly.

There you go. Easy-peasy to defend. All the posts were offering opinions. It's called a forum, you know, somewhere to debate opinions. So go on, give us some more expert legal advice, or is your "someone will get sued" line a default attack position for anyone who dare criticise anything Castleford-related. Well, if any player was daft enough to sue someone for libel, an expensive process at the best of times, for opinions expressed on here, they have clearly been hit too hard by a premeditated forearm smash from Rangi Chase.

£300 fine as well...

I thought he would have got 4 or 5 matches purely due to the aggravating factors that the RFL rules specify.
Oh well, need to see the written judgement and see what they say about it.

Bottled it for mine.

The match officials missed it first, the compliance officer bottled it with a C grade and the panel just kept their heads down and didn't rock the boat.

On the panel - Charlesworth is the solicitor, W. George is the ex-player, who is R Bridge?

Wrong. The minority were Cas fans and as blind as the RFL are spineless.

Using the word "attack" is a bit strong, but you'll see most Cas fans have been saying Chase has a poor technique when it comes to this sort of tackle, and the RFL see it the same way.

I'm assuming they will have warned him about his technique too.