Yeah bad decision, if there are standard punishments in place then they should be followed, the judiciary cant just ignore the rules they created when it suits them or there will be no precedent at all and bans will just be inconsistent.

I see this more and more on the pitch itself.

I've stood near touch judges on the sideline about to do an interchange, someone gets taken out in back play. They weren't even looking, but they then see a player on the deck and wave their flag.

Its always been the case. A head high tackle that doesn't injure someone vs one that breaks a jaw has and always will be treated differently. Otherwise to be consistent you'd have to ban every player that makes a head high tackle for six games or similar, regardless of injury to the opposing player.

Thats wigan screwed then

Regards

King James

i've watched the same video, several times now, and it doesn't look bad at all, he's not coming from the side, he's not pushing against the other defenders or anything, it looks ok, the only thing that bothers me, is that you see boudebza's leg coming all the way round to the front of shenton, which kinda suggests he's got him round the waist and literally dropped all his weight onto the back of shenton's legs. and it reminds me of what rob parker used to get cited for when playing for warrington, where he'd sort of tackle a player from behind then raise his legs up and the ball carrier's legs would then collapse under the weight, he never hurt anyone but the disciplinary kept speaking to him as it had the potential for going wrong.

thats the only thing i can think of they've seen, otherwise its a nothing tackle.

Not surprised at all to see Powell doing his bit post match as judge jury and executioner again like he did against warrington last year.

Injury was taken into account when Chase was banned for his cannonball on Ferres last season.

Boudebza uses his thigh to apply pressure to the side of Shenton's Knee. According to Rod Studd this is what the RFL were looking at. Some players & coaches around the league also spotted this straight away.



Because hospitalising a player due to hitting them in the head over a second after they've passed the ball is perfectly ok, right? Or is it only fine if it's Ben Westwood that does it?

I see he tried doing it against Leeds last week too...when is Tony Smith going to get banned for one of his players doing the same thing on a weekly basis?

i think it is harsh - not one Castleford player reacts to the tackle in a way that something "illegal" had taken place

The proof will be in the pudding regarding the consistency of their rulings. HKR lose a player for virtually the full match, and probably next week, due to a Cas player having his forehead pressed against the HKR players forehead as they hit the ground, concussing the HKR player. Not even cited. How is that showing a duty of care to the opposing player? Surely that action is reckless in that there is a good chance it could cause injury and it is not within the laws, never mind the spirit, of the game. But hey-ho.

What about Albert Kelly missing a third of the season last year because an opposition player ran at him when he kicked the ball, making contact with his outstretched leg and causing an ACL strain. How is running at a player in the midst of kicking a ball, in no way able to defend himself, unable to manouvre out of the way, and at full pelt NOT reckless and liable to cause injury? A lot of what goes on in rugby is aimed at inflictiing pain on the opposition player. How can they cite 'duty of care' to the opposing player when they also admit it was unintentional??

Interesting thoughts, consistency, it's all we ask for. www.totalrl.com/opinion-have-rfl ... debza-ban/

Interesting thoughts, consistency, it's all we ask for. www.totalrl.com/opinion-have-rfl ... debza-ban/

Was a penalty given? If it was that was harsh. A four game ban is plain ridiculous!

HKR should take legal advice. They could get about 5,000 clips of similar tackles being made over the last 50+ years in a few mins online, all of which didn't result in a penalty or a ban. They can't ban a player based on the fact that somebody has unluckily suffered an injury.

They banned him for using an illegal and dangerous tackling technique. He put undue pressure on Shenton's knee and snapped his ACL in doing so.

He was charged before they knew how badly he injured a fellow professional so he was always going to get banned. Read the disciplinary report and you'll actually learn something about the technique used, why it's dangerous and why he deservedly got banned.

If anyone should consider legal advice as you suggest it's Shenton himself.

No thanks, I'd rather just watch a replay (as I've done).

Nothing wrong with it and I feel for him that he's been banned. I also feel for Shenton who's a top pro and seems a great lad but these things happen in contact sport.

Prepare for plenty of bans for legal tackles. Boudebza's ban has been upheld.

So could rovers insist that Shenton sits out the whole season , even if he makes a miraculous recovery?

No because that would be illegal and he's torn his ACL so you aren't going to see him on a Rugby pitch again until probably pre-season now thanks to your team using illegal tackling techniques that are designed to injure players.

They should have also increased his ban on appeal here, they went for 4 games and not more because Boudebza "showed remorse" (despite saying not guilty) then has the nerve to appeal, further showing zero remorse. Take away that mitigating factor and his ban is 5+ games. This is something I believe the RFL are allowed to do.

Hopefully this sends a message to the rest of the league that you can't illegally apply pressure to the joints of opponents and get away with it.

Really? You are talking absolute garbage. So it is now the 'team' as a whole deliberately trying to injure players? Have a word with yourself. The video speaks for itself. You cannot show intent in this instance. It looks to 99% of people like a complete accident even if pressure was exerted in an incorrect way. For intent, see Ben Flowers video, who ended someones career and didn't get much more of a ban. It is a ridiculous decision, drummed up by Powell (who I have now lost all respect for) and Shenton (likewise). We will see just how consistent the RFL are following this ruling. They are a complete joke and they know it. The Untouchables.

Oh dear.

Wow. Words fail me.

So they have a generosity of spirit, as well as fertile imaginations - good to know.

The message it sends out is that the panel is suggestible and happy to rely on inference in the absence of evidence.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

The RFL and players/coaches around the league all saw the reckless leg whip. It deserved a ban and HOPEFULLY the RFL stick to the precedent all season long and hand out 1-2 game bans in the absence of injury.

So because he showed remorse he can't plead not guilty. People who have accidents and hurt others, have done it on purpose if they show remorse! You should be a judge (not)!

The point is not his guilt but the length of the ban.

If he had taken the 2 match ban and the day after that it had been announced that the injury had been season ending, would they have upped his ban? Of course not. This *may* now lead to clubs stating that injuries will take longer to heal before the disciplinary comittee meets in order for players to take longer bans. Hopefully most clubs will be above this but the loophole is now there for all to see.

Just one week in and the RFL is already covering itself in glory, how typical of this sport. Welcome back Super League.

I am a little surprised Mr Hudgell has not made a statement.

He had a valid point about 'inconsistency' - for which I believe he was fined - a couple of years ago - [url=http://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12217/9232902/super-league-hull-kr-chairman-neil-hudgell-slams-rfls-disciplinary-panelHERE[/url

Really? Most people who have commented from other clubs say it was careless at worst. However, I cannot dispute the tackle decision as I am not a professional RFL employee. My argument is that the length of the ban has been influenced by the announcement that it was season ending prior to the hearing. A grade B could have expected 2 matches. If he had received this and THEN the season ending announcement made, the 2 match ban would have stood, so why should the timing of the announcement be allowed to sway the decision?

An example of an injury being overstated influencing a suspension for you all:

Rangi Chase and his cannonball last season. The panel took into account Paul Anderson stating Ferres would be out 10-12 weeks when in reality Ferres was back before Chase was.

I also don't recall people kicking up much of a fuss about injury length being taken into account for that incident, in fact I remember people supporting injury length being used in bans!