Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:51 pm  

The thing that bothers me is I remember against Wire the other year when Briers caught Dorn with a high arm (it was nothing really) late after a kick that wasn't nearly as bad as this and he went to the bin for it. Morley's was much worse and he's got nothing.

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:17 pm  

citywolf wrote:

You keep telling yourself that.

I said at the time that there was nothing in the Morley incident, a split second late but Sherwin was going down and at a wierd angle.

As for Carvell, think he's fortunate to get 1 match.

A split second is all ? Dear me.

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:21 pm  

Gaslight wrote:

He didn't raise his arm, which hit Sherwin flush in the back of the head AFTER the ball had been released, it should have been a straight red nevermind a ban, the only reason he didn't get a ban is because of his name, if it was say Sargent who hit Briers we would have been talking about a 4 game ban and you lot ranting & raving about it being the worst thing to ever happen in the history of the game because it happened to your beloved Lee Briers.

As you've said yourself he didn't raise his arm. He only made contact with his head after it bounced off his body. NOT A HIGH TACKLE.

He may have been late but there was a second in it, when travelling at the speed he was it was impossible for him to stop.

The fact that Sherwin wasn't hurt is testament that he pulled out of the tackle and only conected with a very weak arm to the body.

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:22 pm  

Dead Man Walking wrote:

A split second is all ? Dear me.

Correct a split second. Which in a fast paced Superleague game is nothing.

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:33 pm  

citywolf wrote:

As you've said yourself he didn't raise his arm. He only made contact with his head after it bounced off his body. NOT A HIGH TACKLE.

He may have been late but there was a second in it, when travelling at the speed he was it was impossible for him to stop.

The fact that Sherwin wasn't hurt is testament that he pulled out of the tackle and only conected with a very weak arm to the body.

If it wasn't a high tackle, why did he get charged? Surely he would have been given no case to answer?

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:34 pm  

citywolf wrote:

The fact that Sherwin wasn't hurt is testament that he pulled out of the tackle and only conected with a very weak arm to the body.

The fact that Sherwin wasnt hurt is because he was too quick for him. The intent was there to see, once a thug always a thug.

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:35 pm  

Oh and The RFL wrote: In the Panel’s opinion Morley made contact with the neck and head of an opponent when tackling a Castleford player (Sherwin). The Panel accepted that Morley was committed and entitled to make some contact with his opponent, but that the contact with the head of his opponent was reckless and unnecessary; Morley had the whole body to go at but made contact with the neck and head http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1596 The outcome shows he only got off on the basis that they are unsure as to where the initial impact was, although that suggests to me that it was in close proximity to his neck which could have been potentially dangerous.

Oh and The RFL wrote: In the Panel’s opinion Morley made contact with the neck and head of an opponent when tackling a Castleford player (Sherwin). The Panel accepted that Morley was committed and entitled to make some contact with his opponent, but that the contact with the head of his opponent was reckless and unnecessary; Morley had the whole body to go at but made contact with the neck and head http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1596 The outcome shows he only got off on the basis that they are unsure as to where the initial impact was, although that suggests to me that it was in close proximity to his neck which could have been potentially dangerous.

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:44 pm  

Fully wrote:

If it wasn't a high tackle, why did he get charged? Surely he would have been given no case to answer?

Have you tried asking the RFL??????????

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:48 pm  

Fully wrote: Oh and http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1596 The outcome shows he only got off on the basis that they are unsure as to where the initial impact was, although that suggests to me that it was in close proximity to his neck which could have been potentially dangerous. The committee have scrutinised DVD very carefully. There was a collision and committee are not satisfied this could have been avoided. The committee are also not satisfied the initial contact was high but was towards the upper part of the body. The player’s arms were out but committee not satisfied this case is made out and find the player not guilty of a high tackle as charged. Taken from the link you very kindly provided. I have highlighted the relevant bit.

Fully wrote: Oh and http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1596 The outcome shows he only got off on the basis that they are unsure as to where the initial impact was, although that suggests to me that it was in close proximity to his neck which could have been potentially dangerous. The committee have scrutinised DVD very carefully. There was a collision and committee are not satisfied this could have been avoided. The committee are also not satisfied the initial contact was high but was towards the upper part of the body. The player’s arms were out but committee not satisfied this case is made out and find the player not guilty of a high tackle as charged. Taken from the link you very kindly provided. I have highlighted the relevant bit.

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:59 pm  

chissitt wrote:

The fact that Sherwin wasnt hurt is because he was too quick for him. The intent was there to see, once a thug always a thug.

A leopard does not change his spots.