Not hundred percent sure Marcus, but think Paea suspension at Cas was for a cannonball tackle. All those front rowers scrutinised by the panel, Casty & Bousket amongst them, only ours deemed culpable, consistency would be nice.

Actually you may be right it was Cas away a few years ago, although I'm pretty sure he's been banned or cautioned for using his knees.

He’s been “panelled” before for knees up. It’s blinking hard being a front rower for Hull, your either suspended, injured, or shown the door.

Mickey definitely has history for raising his knees. You would think by now he would have got this out of his game. Its disappointing that we'll lose him for something which is avoidable.

I bent my knee fifty years ago Hessle Roader, been suffering ever since

Done in March 2015, recommended he changed his running style! Then done again a month later with a further match ban.

MICKEY PAEA - HULL FC
HULL FC V LEEDS - SUPER LEAGUE
RANGE OF RECOMMENDED SANCTIONS IN RELATION TO CHARGED GRADE* :
1-2

DETAILS OF CHARGE / REASON FOR NF :
Rule - 15.1(a) Detail – Strikes – Knee – Raising knee in tackle Grade – B

DECISION:
Charge
MICKEY PAEA - HULL FC
HULL FC V HUDDERSFIELD - SUPER LEAGUE
RANGE OF RECOMMENDED SANCTIONS IN RELATION TO CHARGED GRADE* :
1-2

DETAILS OF CHARGE / REASON FOR NF :
Rule – 15.1(a) Detail – Raising knees in tackle Grade – B

DECISION:
Charge

INCIDENT:
Raising knees in tackle in the 12th minute (Mullally)

PLEA:
Not Guilty

SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE CHARGE / EVIDENCE:
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in the 12th minute of the Match when you were in possession of the ball. In the Panel’s opinion you raised your knee whilst moving toward the defensive line, and your knee made contact with an opponent (Mullally). The Panel believed that raising your knee in this manner was unnecessary and had the potential to cause the defender injury. In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade B offence (Raising knees in tackle). If found to have committed the offence, again in accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the normal suspension range for such offence is from a 1 to a 2 match suspension. In addition the Tribunal has the power to impose such fine as it considers reasonable.

SUMMARY OF PLAYER'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE CHARGE / EVIDENCE:
Player accompanied by General Football Manager Motu Tony. Player pleads not guilty. Player and his representative indicate this was a case of poor technique on behalf of the player. Coaching staff are working on his technique which unfortunately has been with the player most of his career. In his running style his knee is extended prior to collision. The player uses this to lead with his strongest side which is his right side. Not easy to fix in a player of his age. In this instance don’t believe contact was made with opponent. If contact had been made the opponent would have suffered a primary injury and not carried on with the game.

DECISION:
Guilty

REASON FOR DECISION:
The tribunal have carefully listened to the submissions made by the player and his representative and have carefully watched the DVD. The requisites of this offence require a raising of the players knee and contact with the opponent. This tribunal are comfortably satisfied the player’s knee was raised and extended towards the opponent and contact was subsequently made with a potential for injury to the opponent. As such the offence is made out.

SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION
On approaching opponent player running style changes-stride lengthens-right knee is waist high-conceded first point on contact is upper body-but promoted knee makes contact with opponent in groin area-with potential for serious injury

SUMMARY OF PLAYER'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION
Player aware his technique needs working on-coaching staff are working on this technique which has been with the player for a considerable amount of his playing career-did not think any contact in this instance

REASONS FOR DECISION
The tribunal are aware these are not straightforward cases that have been proved in both instances. The tribunal are aware of the player’s previous record relating to similar incidents in his recent past and these are an aggravating factor in deciding upon the appropriate sanction. The tribunal are satisfied this is not a flagrant transgression by the player on every carry and are impressed by the submissions made by the player and his representative. The Coaches are aware of the player’s problems and are working on his technique this has had an effect on the sanctions imposed. The tribunal are satisfied that the contact made in each case was minimal and not primary. The tribunal are satisfied there was no intent to injure either opponent. Taking into account all the surrounding circumstances this tribunal feel that a 1 match suspension and £250 be imposed for each separate offence. Making a total of 2 matches and £500 fine

SUSPENSION
1 match

FINE
£250

WARNING
Player must be aware if repeated visits are made to tribunal for similar matters the sanctions may increase

INCIDENT:
Use of knees in the 5th minute (Jones-Buchanan)

PLEA:
Guilty

SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE CHARGE / EVIDENCE:
The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in the 5th minute of the Match when you were in possession of the ball. In the Panel’s opinion you raised your knee whilst moving toward the defensive line, and your knee made contact with an opponent (Jones-Buchanan). The Panel believed that raising your knee in this manner was unnecessary and had the potential to cause the defender injury. In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade B offence (Strikes – Knee – Raising knee in tackle). If found to have committed the offence, again in accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the normal suspension range for such offence is from a 1 match to a 2 match suspension. In addition the Tribunal has the power to impose such fine as it considers reasonable.

SUMMARY OF PLAYER'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE CHARGE / EVIDENCE:
Player accompanied by General Manager Motu Tony. Player pleads guilty. Player was approaching defensive line at speed and had to shorten his stride prior to contact. Accepts this is a flaw in this player’s technique and coaching staff are working on it to try and rectify the problem. Not a dirty player and no intent to injure the opponent. Player accepts dangerous technique and is working with coaching staff to alleviate this problem which is historical.

SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION
Changes running style and raises knee-knee at waist height potential for serious injury-dangerous technique-long stride prior to contact-any low tackle may have resulted in serious injury

SUMMARY OF PLAYER'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION
Not a dirty player-coaching staff working on his technique

AGGRAVATING FACTORS
Re-occurring problem-potential for serious injury

REASONS FOR DECISION
The tribunal have listened to the submissions made by the player and his representative. The player accepts his responsibility for his actions and realises this is a flaw in his game. The tribunal are pleased the club and coaching staff recognise this issue and are working hard to rectify it and are impressed with the frankness shown. The tribunal are satisfied this player is not a dirty player but must make it clear that the player has two previous cautions for similar offences of raising the knee in the tackle. If this persists this tribunal will have no alternative but to impose heavier sanctions than the one imposed for this offence. Taking into account all the circumstances this tribunal feel that a 1 match suspension and £300 fine is appropriate

SUSPENSION
1 Match

FINE
£300

I know he’s been done for knee raising Steve Norton, just the Cas incident was for a cannonball.

Found it https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/disciplinary Note the https bit.

Found it https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/disciplinary Note the https bit.

He did it twice in 7 minutes yesterday!!

Viagra

He has done it all his life
I remember in his first season at the club he was suspended for it and Radford actually said he was working with him regarding his running style into the tackle.
That obviously didnt work then

“ Sydney City juniors 1990”

The grand finale of the local egg & spoon race, winner Michael “knocky knees” Paea suspended for tripping another five year old in the next lane. Whilst young Paea never changed lanes, the unusual action of his running, got him disqualified, and it was formally placed on his school report, “this running technique would leave him open to sanctions, especially in puberty as his legs will grow thicker and hairier”

Jack Brown MOM at Doncaster yesterday so may be enough for Radford to give him a run at Catalan
Hadley should come back in.
Dont understand why Bienek or Levy not given a chance when we need a bit of size in the front row,especially at Catalan
I did hear we had some illness at the club.four or five players mentioned and Langtree pulled out of the game at Doncaster.
Could be the reason they wernt considered

yea agree, thought I saw levy warming up at Salford, might be wrong,

Yeah he was. Was on a photo on the Hull Facebook in full kit warning up. Never got picked so he was doing commentary with the Hull radio thing.
I'd give him a go against Catalans. Definitely Langtree and then 1 of Levy/Brown/Bienek. Levy for me though.

A lot depends whether Taylor makes it.
If he doesnt then we are looking at four new front rows so room for
Levy,Bienek,Brown with Gaz Ellis.
Langtree should then get a chance off the bench

If my theory is correct, that makes 32 players in AP's cap maximum of 30 players.

Can you explain further for us all
Does that mean its unlikely we will see for example Bienek,Levy and Langtree in the squad together irrespective of injuries?

I've been explaining it in a number of posts over the last few weeks "to all".
I guess you haven't read them.

eg



Green, Bowden and Talanoa are almost certainly in the top 25 earners, so count on the cap whether they play or not. Fash might be as well. Ratu should be zero rated on the cap this year so hasn't been included.

Thanks
so on that basis if correct we are unlikely to see Levy,Bienek and Langtree together in the first team even though we may have no established front rows available this weekend

Shines a light on how challenging our injury position has been, that's for sure. Of our first pick 17 not that many who've played 9 rounds. 6?

I think questions need asking about why injuries are so bad now, not just at FC, across the game.

It may be coincidence, but there a lot of knee injuries in the game now (and in football as well) I wonder if advances in pitch technology and boot design are a contributing factor?

The cost of the top 25 players will be pretty much fixed, so that leaves around 5 players extra before the cap limit is reached. Ellis and Savelio have probably complicated it even more.

U21's are treated differently, I've just had a look at the cap rules again, and they appear to be different from a couple of months ago.
It now suggests that U21's don't count on the cap. (Page 276)??
I'll have another look when my brain stops hurting.

It could well be, also players being "too fit" so muscles/ligaments damage more easily.