Well done Rovers for appealing and supporting one of their players, risking an increase in the penalty, but having the balls to test the system.

Don't quite see how pleading guilty can have such an impact on a reduction in the ban...



Radio Humberside are saying the ban has been reduced from 5 matches to 2.

So you think Taylor would have had his 2 bans reduced, bearing in mind a player is missing 8-10 weeks as a result of one of those "incidents".

Firstly I don’t, and neither do you, know what the outcome of an appeal would have been, but one thing is for sure if you don’t ask, you dont get.

Secondly as far as I know, if a player is injured due to the actions of another, the length of time the injured player is missing, is not a guideline for the length of any ban.

Luckily as we have won two out of three Tag was unfairly banned for, the blow has been softened somewhat.

Maybe the club knew that an appeal would not have been successful.

The charge was based on "to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player", the fact that the player was injured proves the likelihood of guilt, and grade C is 2-3 matches. Accidental is unlikely to be an acceptable excuse. An appeal could easily have increased the ban to 3 matches, not worth the risk.

Yes you can supply the RFL justification for his sentence, but all these incidents can be interpreted differently, I have seen these so called incidents, I presume you have as well, did you actually see any intent by our player.

I did see Jack Hughes bending the neck of Kenny Edwards, and amazingly the panel didn’t manage to catch that one. Inconsistency is angering the paying public.

I guess it depends what you mean by intent, does the panel actually take that into account?

The game was on sky, we all know that some camera angles can be inconclusive, and others give a different story.

Sorry I mean what was your view of it.

I only saw it "live", I didn't see anything at the time, infact, at first, I though the ref was putting Houghton on report for speaking out of turn!

The game was on sky, we all know that some camera angles can be inconclusive, and others give a different story.

Like me, at the game, then seen and watched it on tv, can’t see anything but Tag making and assisting in the tackle, then getting back quickly to defend again, I suppose if you look hard enough you can find fault with anything. If we beat Leeds on Friday, maybe they should have given him longer.

I reckon he should just have knocked the referee over, just to keep the RFL bias to the top four going.

Are you attempting to advocate physical violence towards a match official?

Not at all, just saying how many double standards there are in the process.

Damn.

The Tompkins verdict is a good read. https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/di ... #advSearch They say that is was correctly graded at D, 3-5 matches, but a similar case (Barlow) deemed worse than Tomkins was given a 3 match penalty, so reduced Tomkins ban to 2. Quote MRP feel Grade D is appropriate for the following reasons. 1) Player is aggressive towards official 2) Players uses Foul and Abusive Language and questions the integrity of the official by using the word “cheat” 3) The abuse is repeated twice.'" I guess they never considered that the Barlow ban was too lenient. Also, Quote This tribunal wish to point out that this decision should not be used as a precedent for future cases'" Work that one out!

The Tompkins verdict is a good read. https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/di ... #advSearch They say that is was correctly graded at D, 3-5 matches, but a similar case (Barlow) deemed worse than Tomkins was given a 3 match penalty, so reduced Tomkins ban to 2. Quote MRP feel Grade D is appropriate for the following reasons. 1) Player is aggressive towards official 2) Players uses Foul and Abusive Language and questions the integrity of the official by using the word “cheat” 3) The abuse is repeated twice.'" I guess they never considered that the Barlow ban was too lenient. Also, Quote This tribunal wish to point out that this decision should not be used as a precedent for future cases'" Work that one out!

Another quiet weekend..... https://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_doc ... _FINAL.pdf

Another quiet weekend..... https://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_doc ... _FINAL.pdf

I love the hit on Ellis, doesnt know where contact was made but he knocked him out....the player had to leave the field but no further action needed.

What a croc of

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/g ... -1-9641607 Gaz gives it to Phil

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/g ... -1-9641607 Gaz gives it to Phil

I thought it looked like Ellis hit his head on the floor at the time but not sure

He definitely needs to become a Sky pundit, once we've finished needing him to play! (Ellis, not Clarke)

After just seeing the SLS how the hell can the RFL disciplinary panel say the video footage doesn’t show where the contact was??? It clearly shows it was definite contact with the head!!!
So yet again the RFL disciplinary panel is shown to be a complete joke and not really fit for purpose.

Had to check myself - forearm smash by Singleton, how could you miss that? 22:50 into the programme.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... 9-11032019 Quote Player reaches downwards over opponent’s shoulder whilst making attempt to tackle. Opponent is dipping when contact is made. Footage does not show point of contact on opponent.'"

Had to check myself - forearm smash by Singleton, how could you miss that? 22:50 into the programme.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... 9-11032019 Quote Player reaches downwards over opponent’s shoulder whilst making attempt to tackle. Opponent is dipping when contact is made. Footage does not show point of contact on opponent.'"

So they miss a shot to Ellis's head that anybody without a white stick can see on the coverage but see a tackle by Taylor that earned him a three match holiday?

Unfit for purpose.

Quote ="ccs"Had to check myself - forearm smash by Singleton, how could you miss that? 22:50 into the programme.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... 9-11032019 '" Not hard to miss is it? Maybe not intentional but careless and direct contact is made and can clearly be seen. When is an offence actually an offence? It’s clear and definite contact with the head. So questions need to be asked of the RFL as to how this is acceptable?

Quote ="ccs"Had to check myself - forearm smash by Singleton, how could you miss that? 22:50 into the programme.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... 9-11032019 '" Not hard to miss is it? Maybe not intentional but careless and direct contact is made and can clearly be seen. When is an offence actually an offence? It’s clear and definite contact with the head. So questions need to be asked of the RFL as to how this is acceptable?

They even say "Opponent is dipping when contact is made".

Singleton is 2 paces away, Ellis's body position doesn't change until hit by his forearm, it looks deliberate to me, but I'm biased.