I'm sure you'll give it a go, and enjoy the day!!!!

Chase is a great player but has a very nasty streak to which he has no reputation on.

Against us in the dying minutes despite them clearly winning easily he had a right go at Fox in a disproportionate way. Looked like it hurt Fox.

No need for stuff like that.

Can anyone remember what happened to Robbie Mears? I think he tried to sue a player after getting his head knocked off.

According to wikipedia - Mears was awarded damages after a law suit against Sonny Nickle.

According to Wiki he sued Sonny Nickle and was awarded damages
Nickle got 9 games though.

The difference with Chase incident is that it was a snap judgement. I've no doubt he intended it but it wasn't as obvious as Les Boyd or Adrian Morley where they charged down field and smashed into someone.
Because Chase was in the corner with a short run up it was harder to judge the severity but for me, he intended it, and he did not miss so should be severely dealt with.
3 matches is not appropriate in my opinion but as the judiciary have guidelines to follow I can see why he got it.

Just looking at the disciplinary guidelines I think the ruling was too light.

Grade C-E Strikes with elbow – tackling – reckless
Grade D-F Strikes with elbow – tackling – intentional

Grade - Normal suspension range
C - 2-3
D - 3-5
E - 4-8
F - 8+

So they ruled for a 3 match suspension that either it was the lowest grade of reckless tackle but the highest suspension in that range or that it was intentional but the lowest possible suspension.

Either way, I'd have given more.
The rules do allow for a clean record to be taken into considerationbut equally they say an injury to a player because of the incident should also be taken into consideration.

I think it was adjudged to have been the forearm and not the elbow that hit Ropati (although it looked like the elbow followed through...) and so was grade C.

And they obviously didn't take the severity of the injury or Chase's stance after the incident (suggesting intent IMO) into account.

Let's hope someone repays him in a reckless way of course that way peter gentles best mate can be made to look even more stupid than he already does! If that's possible.

Link?

What's a grade A-B offence?

Quote ="18th Man"Link? What's a grade A-B offence?'" www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3553

Quote ="18th Man"Link? What's a grade A-B offence?'" www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3553

Probably questioning a ref whilst not sporting a a blue and yellow shirt and a stupid ginner hair dye?

www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... 0Final.pdf guide lines but there is quite a few pages to sift through

www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... 0Final.pdf guide lines but there is quite a few pages to sift through

Thanks for that Snowie, I always assumed Grade A was the worst!

Fev did a good job on rag chase thats why he spit the dummy out and did what he did. I.M.O

Yes, I read that the other night and it explains several reasons as to why the punishment was as it was. S

Where does it explain the evidence that can be submitted? I must have missed that bit. As far as I know, the only evidence that can be submitted in support is video footage from the club (otherwise, players could rightfully claim they were being discriminated against by more detailed coverage in televised games). The video footage from the club is unlikely to reveal what has clearly been shown to be the case in other footage, namely a case of deliberate foul play. The result is the RFL is made to look stupid (again) and the defendent gets off lightly.

Chase is a lucky man. His victim is much less fortunate. Chase doesn't deserve the support he's received from certain quarters over this. People should save it for someone more worthy.

Where did I say evidence can be submitted?

I wouldn't want to take the physicality out of the game but it did look to be preventable by chase by a lower tackling technique.

What I think defiantly doesn't fit the crime is the messily fine of £300, if the player on charge had to compensate the injured players wages (if it was deemed that it was intentional) I think they would have second thoughts about their actions

was an easy cop out again for the ref and another embarrassing decision from the RFL

Simple way for this is anyone found guilty of foul play gets a ban until the victim is cleared to play, I'm certain people with crap tackling techniques would soon adjust accordingly, no room for thugs in the game it's hard enough without gimps like chase trying to decapitate players.

What happens in cases where there's foul play and no injury? You know like David Howell's bite and Gareth Hock's eye gouging?

And what happens when the victim is a squad player and the attacker is a star. Victim club could just freeze other out of game by claiming he's still injured. You'd get club doctors arguing.
Nice idea but unworkable.

That's excatly how I saw it he had a massive dummy spit and lost control because his team were losing and he was having a mare. Shame someone else had to suffer because he is such a sore loser. I remember Atkins stamping on/kicking a Skolars player a few years back and it was a similar thing, 'how dare these lower league players perform so well against a superstar like me,' pathetic.

I'm not having that JT, he slipped and it was all accidental, we should defend our own to the hilt, blindy if needed.

Oh it was poor technique for sure, he used his feet instead of his hands!

this was a raised and aimed elbow and not a mis-timed or hard challenge gone wrong. it was foul play, there is never justification for the elbow to hit the ball carrier in the way chase hit ropati, it cannot happen by accident. it was reckless, it had intent. i'm staggered he didn't get a very very big ban.