[url=https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/ex-warrington-wolves-star-handedmammoth-ban-76132/18 matches for 'former' wire aussie star[/url

LOL if Serious About RL actually researched their stories they would know it’s a different Tyrone Roberts.

Maybe they would change their name to "Sloppy Careless Reporting About RL"

Bunch of clowns

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... %7C-june-6

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... %7C-june-6

Hate to bring it back to the Knowles incident, but 12 matches for words and nothing for a deliberate attempt to injure a fellow professional is a joke. I know the whole "inclusivity" thing is in vogue nowadays but this is silly. However, he should have learnt his lesson but decided not to

Inclusivity is in vogue?


Did you really just write that?

I was trying to write a response and gave up.

Just read that tribunal thing, and to put the top hat on it, Walmsley was found not guilty of a high tackle, so the mouth breathers in WA9 will be in ecstasy

Saints must have had compelling evidence. Had they have lost the appeal and it be deemed frivolous, they would have lost Walmsley for the Wigan fixture. I don't think they would have risked that for a £250 fine. If it was for the incident I think it was, it was a head clash, commented on at the time by the clowns, sorry commentary team, on Sky. It seems at the moment the review panel are leaving themselves open to appeals. The McDonnell ban and appeal shows that they just took the word of the touch judges decision on the field as gospel, It would appear as a result of Leeds appeal, that despite all the video angles, they couldn't find the evidence of that. I presume the touch judge must have back tracked as they allowed the appeal. How many times has this happened and a club hasn't appealed for fear of the appeal being deemed frivolous and losing a player for an extra game with an important fixture at stake.

First of all it wasn't a deliberate attempt to injure someone,how many tackles have we seen since then that are exactly the same but the player has had a lesser ban ? As for the 12 games,IF it's true what he said and who it was said about then he's an idiot and deserves what he gets. There is winding players up and it happens in every game,then there is crossing a line and it seems he has crossed that line again.

Didn't all the QCs become KCs a short while back? Not a big deal I know, but the MRP (or ORT in this case) might want to get something right every now and again?

Saints are very professional with the appeals. It's always based on something. The Knowles incident before the Grand Final for example, they got an independent medical expert to prove that he didn't move the arm beyond the natural range of motion, so therefore it couldn't have been putting an undue risk of injury on the player, which was the rationale used for the grading.

With the Walmsley one, the MRP put 'high tackle, player attempts tackle, but is reckless about the outcome'. What happened was Greenwood runs the ball in hard, his head hits Roby's in a headclash (Who interestingly wasn't cited) and bounced off like a deflected shot in football and hits Walmsley's head. It was a bizarre charge in the first place and another that has happened due to this ridiculous mantra of banning players if an injury occurs. They've presumably charged Walmsley and not Roby as they think the injury came from his head hitting Walmsley's. If you pause it when the initial contact occurs, Walmsley's head is nowhere near Greenwood's, so how can it be reckless? It's just unfortunate.

McDonnell is either really lucky, in that the video doesn't pick up a punch that happened, or really unlucky in that the touch judge sees a motion and interprets that as a punch when it in fact wasn't. Again, the panel have used the injury to Lomax as part of the rationale for the charge along with the testimony of the touch judge. Once Leeds proved he already had a mark on his face before it, they reversed the ban. Again, strange as Lomax's shirt was clean before it, and looked like Terry Butcher after it. In reality the MRP should never have charged him, if they can see there was no punch, or back the touch judge and ban him anyway despite the lack of video proof. Sending off sufficient and no record on his disciplinary rap sheet would have been the correct outcome for me. That way you're not dismissing the touch judge's opinion.

The MRP are just going too far in re-refereeing games for me. They're looking for reasons to ban players. We need to move to a system similar to football's, in that they trust the officials and don't re-referee the entire game frame by frame looking for any hint of a possible foul or injury. They way they do it now is also biased against the teams who are televised. There are far more charges brought from the televised games vs the non-televised games as there is better footage and more camera angles. That can't be right.

I agree with all this. Just a question though, does the MRP review all the game, or do they only review incidents that are put on report by the referee during the game itself?

reviews the entire game i believe, thats why on report is such a pointless excercise on field now.

I've said before how much of a pedant that Cullen comes across as, so I'd imagine those Mondays reviewing those games must absolutely fly by....

If they are re refereeing ALL of the games then that doesn't sit well with me. It's a bit cockeyed that any transgression benefits the next opponents rather than the match day 'victims' via the On Report system but to extend that makes that injustice worse IMO.

And the type of offence that McGuire's is alleged (yes he's currently Guilty of) to have committed some things are better left to game day even if one or two things go unpunished

Retrospective VAR

[urlhttps://www.rugby-league.com/governance/rules-and-regulations/disciplinary/disciplinary-case?case=17385[/url

Well if I were McGuire and I was telling the truth then you’d not stop until clearing your name. Accepting that would be a clear admission of guilt.

The issue with McGuire is when he initially denied the first offence, he didn’t tell us what he said, other than ‘I said something bad, but I didn’t say that’….
But we still don’t know officially what the ‘bad’ was…and McGuire won’t say.

He's been found guilty of the first one, with the referee hearing what he said. To then base his defense in the second tribunal on the fact that he's a good guy and wouldn't use language like that is bizarre from McGuire and Warrington as a club. If he was innocent, the real issue is pleading not guilty to the first tribunal, which the referee heard. If he pleads guilty at that one and approaches the second with 'I'm really sorry for what happened the first time, but this totally didn't happen this time, I said xyz. I understand Josh is upset still and I'd like to apologise again' he might have had more luck. It's totally understandable the tribunal thought he wasn't credible though.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. Is an appeal possible? If so, will he take it? Are Warrington in the process of terminating his contract? That again could be more complicated if there's no witness as it could possibly have a different burden of proof than a sports tribunal.

You just had to put that in didn’t you?
What a tool of a comment.

Plus the ref never confirmed he heard McGuire the first time, he ‘thought’ he heard it.

Careful, or you might get a two week ban duckie and we wouldn't want that.

It's true isn't it? You'd think there would have been a thorough discussion and plan going in. It seems the approach was ill advised at best and that does reflect on the club as well as the individual.

Actually agree with this. Call me cynical, but it's almost like Wire want McGuire gone the way they appear to have failed to support the player's defence, because if they had prepared a good defence, with a good legal team, then that charge against him wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes.

No it’s not true
The club was not in cahoots being dirigible for McGuire to have freedom to be derogatory to any player.
That’s 2 pathetic comments.
If I’m boarding on a 2 week mod holiday as you imply….you’re closer to a 12 week McGuire vacation!!