: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:26 am  

braytontiger wrote:

get over yourself you sound like a wigan fan,i can assure you nobody in cas gives a flying one about saints as where no threat to you neither is wakefield,what cunningham did deserved a ban and your right he`s not a cheap shot bloke but that shouldnt be enough to give him emunity from ever getting a ban.

Spot on there pal, both Cas and Wakey need Saints to be at full strength so that it gives them a better chance to beat our playoff rivals.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:28 am  

The real problem is the lack of transparency in the UK disciplinary system.

Just about every week Cas seem to have 1 or 2 players considered for some transgression or other despite very few of the incidents being noted at the time by the ref.

Its about time the RFL employed a totting up system similar to that used by the NRL.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:00 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Cunningham has a very good record. Also, he didn't 'get away with it'. He got a formal caution. That's on his record for the next three months, which means that if he does anything wrong again, he could well get a ban (where he might not have done had he not had the caution on his record). The RFL stated that they were giving Cunningham the benefit of the doubt where intent was concerned. They believe he did not intend to hit the eye but they did call the action reckless, which it was. It was a reckless action borne out of frustration. Had the RFL believed Cunningham had been aiming for the eye, which would have been a malicious thing to do, then he would have been banned.

Benefit of the doubt - that's hilarious.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:15 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Cunningham has a very good record.

I wouldn't call taking performance enhancing drugs a 'very good record'

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:44 am  

The other thing is that several times in the past there have been occasions when one player or players have been given a greater sentence than another for exactly or the same offence. The RFL have always countered allegations of biasedness in these cases by pointing out that the player who was more greatly punished was done so because he had 'previous' or a bad history of disciplinary problems and therefore deserved a bigger punishment than someone who had a relatively good record.

We have been told that Richie Mathers was up for the same offence as Ferres. So how do they explain giving him exactly the same ban. Mathers was sent off twice with Wigan last year and has already served a 2 match ban this season, whilst Ferres as far as I know is pretty much squeaky clean in comparison to him , although I will stand to be corrected on that. It is like a first offender going to court and being punished exactly the same as a serial offender for the same offence.

I will be deeply unhappy with our club if we do not appeal against this unjust punishment.

: Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:20 pm  

confirmation we won't be appealing against the ban Ferres received... Meanwhile, Tigers won't appeal against the one-match ban which will keep second-row Brett Ferres out of Sunday's return to former club Wakefield. Matterson said: "We've looked at it closely. Probably one week was fair, there was certainly no intent there." full story http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/t ... 5489532.jp

confirmation we won't be appealing against the ban Ferres received... Meanwhile, Tigers won't appeal against the one-match ban which will keep second-row Brett Ferres out of Sunday's return to former club Wakefield. Matterson said: "We've looked at it closely. Probably one week was fair, there was certainly no intent there." full story http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/t ... 5489532.jp

: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:46 pm  

Gazemous wrote:

:lol:

I wouldn't call taking performance enhancing drugs a 'very good record'

Christ knows how he's the only one who's got caught


Theres a pattern that develops, Cas win 3 on the trot, we get a player banned. No-one else figured that out yet?

These idiots making the decisions have no idea and certainly no qualifications as to what strikes/impacts do what to the human body. I don't really care about the intent, its totally irrelevant in the scheme of things, its the outcome that counts. Bunch of pillocks the lot of them

: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:08 pm  

Tigerpie wrote:

Christ knows how he's the only one who's got caught


Theres a pattern that develops, Cas win 3 on the trot, we get a player banned. No-one else figured that out yet?

These idiots making the decisions have no idea and certainly no qualifications as to what strikes/impacts do what to the human body. I don't really care about the intent, its totally irrelevant in the scheme of things, its the outcome that counts. Bunch of pillocks the lot of them

the conspiracy theory, your paranoid if you think that the RFL has chosen Ferris just because you have won three on the trot

can you prove your statement?

: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:14 pm  

danny boy1 wrote: confirmation we won't be appealing against the ban Ferres received... Meanwhile, Tigers won't appeal against the one-match ban which will keep second-row Brett Ferres out of Sunday's return to former club Wakefield. Matterson said: "We've looked at it closely. Probably one week was fair, there was certainly no intent there." full story http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/t ... 5489532.jp because he has decided Ferris has something to account for little snippet from Matterson from the clip "Our under-18s are at the top of the table and in Super League we're equal fifth, I think he needs to look again

danny boy1 wrote: confirmation we won't be appealing against the ban Ferres received... Meanwhile, Tigers won't appeal against the one-match ban which will keep second-row Brett Ferres out of Sunday's return to former club Wakefield. Matterson said: "We've looked at it closely. Probably one week was fair, there was certainly no intent there." full story http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/t ... 5489532.jp because he has decided Ferris has something to account for little snippet from Matterson from the clip "Our under-18s are at the top of the table and in Super League we're equal fifth, I think he needs to look again

: Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:42 pm  

snowie wrote:

because he has decided Ferris has something to account for

little snippet from Matterson from the clip

"Our under-18s are at the top of the table and in Super League we're equal fifth,
I think he needs to look again

He didnt say we top of the table he said we were at the top of the table.