Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:53 pm  

So Mr Bailey should have spoke in polite manner and asked Mr Silverwood "Would you mind getting out of the way sir, as I believe you are preventing me getting to a attacking player to tackle him"

I personally can't see the difference between what Webb did and what Bailey did.

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:59 pm  

A-Fire-Inside wrote:

I have no problem with him being banned for the contact on the ref, but it needs to be in proportion to other incidents from this season, and three games is way OTT.

Is it really worth a longer ban than for what Tommy Lee received for almost decapitating Lee Briers?

I'm not sure this is comparable to most other incidents though. Were this a ban for a foul of some sort then it should be proportionate to other instances of foul play. However, this is a different thing entirely. I'd like to think that its the beginning of a new tougher stance on disrespect to the official, where I think standards have slipped in recent seasons. A few more penalties for backchat. Maybe a trip to red hall for anything a bit worse would send the correct message out

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:01 pm  

Wot a joke the rhinos club and Brian McDermott are for backing the decision of the RFL disciplinary panel on this matter and supporting bans on there players. So much for RFL having rhinos in they're pockets. Ridiculous, load of bollox, wot a stuff-up, no common sense, pathetic, shocking, laughable, farce, incompetent, inept, bizarre, crazy, indecent, silly, dubious, unacceptable, RFL apologists, ref apologists, clowns, typical anti-leeds bias by leeds, hope rhinos and mcdermott gets a game at Headingley soon while it's fresh in everyone's memory, bailey should knock McDermott on his ar5e for not backing him up, and don't get in the way of the RFL whatever you do cos they do what they want, rhinos club make RFU old farts look like mensa candidates, surely wilkin & peacocks shiny new union could of, would of and should of done something useful asking serious questions of club as to why they agreed with RFL about been treated more harshly for shoving a referee than they do for attacking a load of red herring 'ouch! my head' examples? Is referee's "safety" more paramount than any other red herrings on offer? I have no problem with him being banned for the contact on the ref, but it needs to be in proportion to other red herrings from this season, and three games is way OTT.

Well said... ETC.

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:13 pm  

Keith Swiftcorn wrote:

Wot a joke the rhinos club and Brian McDermott are for backing the decision of the RFL disciplinary panel on this matter and supporting bans on there players. So much for RFL having rhinos in they're pockets. Ridiculous, load of bollox, wot a stuff-up, no common sense, pathetic, shocking, laughable, farce, incompetent, inept, bizarre, crazy, indecent, silly, dubious, unacceptable, RFL apologists, ref apologists, clowns, typical anti-leeds bias by leeds, hope rhinos and mcdermott gets a game at Headingley soon while it's fresh in everyone's memory, bailey should knock McDermott on his ar5e for not backing him up, and don't get in the way of the RFL whatever you do cos they do what they want, rhinos club make RFU old farts look like mensa candidates, surely wilkin & peacocks shiny new union could of, would of and should of done something useful asking serious questions of club as to why they agreed with RFL about been treated more harshly for shoving a referee than they do for attacking a load of red herring 'ouch! my head' examples? Is referee's "safety" more paramount than any other red herrings on offer? I have no problem with him being banned for the contact on the ref, but it needs to be in proportion to other red herrings from this season, and three games is way OTT.

Well said... ETC.

Could someone please paraphrase as I really can't be arsed reading all this.

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:14 pm  

Nobber...etc

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:24 pm  

The Eagle wrote:

I'm not sure this is comparable to most other incidents though. Were this a ban for a foul of some sort then it should be proportionate to other instances of foul play. However, this is a different thing entirely. I'd like to think that its the beginning of a new tougher stance on disrespect to the official, where I think standards have slipped in recent seasons. A few more penalties for backchat. Maybe a trip to red hall for anything a bit worse would send the correct message out

There is far worse cases of disrespect to an an official though. We only heard last season James Graham on the telly shouting obsenities to the official, which was caught on camera and the ref spoke to him. But did he get banned?

There is a difference between disrespect to officials over decisions made (ala Graham above, Hock push), and what Bailey did in trying to do his job.

I'm not defending him, far from it, but I think his offence needs differentiating from showing lack of respect to official. If what he did, as has been shown now, is an offence then we all play by same rules now. But my own personal opinion is that the way some react to certain decisions is far worse an offence, if the term to be used is disrespect.

There is still no reason why Silverwood should also not be publicly rebuked here for his very poor positioning in this incident. Are other refs making this mistake?

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:27 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

The Eagle wrote:

I'm not sure this is comparable to most other incidents though. Were this a ban for a foul of some sort then it should be proportionate to other instances of foul play. However, this is a different thing entirely. I'd like to think that its the beginning of a new tougher stance on disrespect to the official, where I think standards have slipped in recent seasons. A few more penalties for backchat. Maybe a trip to red hall for anything a bit worse would send the correct message out

There is far worse cases of disrespect to an an official though. We only heard last season James Graham on the telly shouting obsenities to the official, which was caught on camera and the ref spoke to him. But did he get banned?

There is a difference between disrespect to officials over decisions made (ala Graham above, Hock push), and what Bailey did in trying to do his job.

I'm not defending him, far from it, but I think his offence needs differentiating from showing lack of respect to official. If what he did, as has been shown now, is an offence then we all play by same rules now. But my own personal opinion is that the way some react to certain decisions is far worse an offence, if the term to be used is disrespect.

There is still no reason why Silverwood should also not be publicly rebuked here for his very poor positioning in this incident. Are other refs making this mistake?

I agree. I believe the extracts from the hearing say that the ref was poorly positioned.

I think on the disrespect issue the hands part could be seen as a bit of a slippery slope. Best to have a well defined line. Hands on the ref is a big no no. Now we just have to be consistent with the ruling

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:32 pm  

Juan Cornetto wrote: http://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3407 Incident considered Deliberate physical contact with a match official in 36th minute Decision On Charge Player plea Guilty Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 36th minute of the Match. In the Panel’s opinion you made deliberate physical contact with the referee. The Panel believed that this behaviour was serious misconduct, unnecessary and against the spirit of the game. In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade C offence (Deliberate physical contact with a match official). 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 2 match suspension to a 3 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 admitts guilt. Decision Guilty plea. Reasons for Decision Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct) Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction No further submissions. Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction Mr McDermott believes Mr Bailey is guilty of the offence. Mr McDermott does feel that the match official’s postioning was poor, however Mr Bailey should have realised that the match official was not a decoy runner. In addition he should have taken a more appropriate course of action in attempting to move around him. Aggravating Factors Mitigating Factors Guilty plea. Reasons for Decision The panel believe that Mr Bailey should have dealt with the situation in a different way. There was a deliberate push on the referee and continued petulance showed towards the referee after the try was scored. The panel will not tolerate any aggression showed towards a match official. The panel have taken into account the plea of guilt but cannot overlook the seriousness of this incident. It is therefore the opinion of the committee that a 3 match suspension and a £300 fine is in order. Suspension 3 matches Fine £300 Warning Interesting summary. Why was Bailey charged with a Grade C offence? Have the sentencing guidelines changed SINCE 2010? On Field Compliance Sentencing Guidelines from 2010 15.1(i) Behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game - Grade D-E ... Deliberate physical contact with a match official. Grade D offences carry 3 to 5 match bans. Grade E offences carry 4 to 8 match bans.

Juan Cornetto wrote: http://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3407 Incident considered Deliberate physical contact with a match official in 36th minute Decision On Charge Player plea Guilty Summary of CM's submissions on the Charge / evidence The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 36th minute of the Match. In the Panel’s opinion you made deliberate physical contact with the referee. The Panel believed that this behaviour was serious misconduct, unnecessary and against the spirit of the game. In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade C offence (Deliberate physical contact with a match official). 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 2 match suspension to a 3 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 admitts guilt. Decision Guilty plea. Reasons for Decision Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct) Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction No further submissions. Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction Mr McDermott believes Mr Bailey is guilty of the offence. Mr McDermott does feel that the match official’s postioning was poor, however Mr Bailey should have realised that the match official was not a decoy runner. In addition he should have taken a more appropriate course of action in attempting to move around him. Aggravating Factors Mitigating Factors Guilty plea. Reasons for Decision The panel believe that Mr Bailey should have dealt with the situation in a different way. There was a deliberate push on the referee and continued petulance showed towards the referee after the try was scored. The panel will not tolerate any aggression showed towards a match official. The panel have taken into account the plea of guilt but cannot overlook the seriousness of this incident. It is therefore the opinion of the committee that a 3 match suspension and a £300 fine is in order. Suspension 3 matches Fine £300 Warning Interesting summary. Why was Bailey charged with a Grade C offence? Have the sentencing guidelines changed SINCE 2010? On Field Compliance Sentencing Guidelines from 2010 15.1(i) Behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game - Grade D-E ... Deliberate physical contact with a match official. Grade D offences carry 3 to 5 match bans. Grade E offences carry 4 to 8 match bans.

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:32 pm  

From case notes:

"The panel believe that Mr Bailey should have dealt with the situation in a different way."

It would be useful if they'd gone into detail here, just to know what is acceptable. To safe-guard this offence occuring again. Bit wishy-washy.

On viewing there doesn't look much between Webbs and Baileys 'shove' but one was a 3 game offence and the other was a naughty letter sent to Mr Webb Senior.

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:43 pm  

thebloodbath wrote:

From case notes:

"The panel believe that Mr Bailey should have dealt with the situation in a different way."

It would be useful if they'd gone into detail here, just to know what is acceptable. To safe-guard this offence occuring again. Bit wishy-washy.

NOT SHOVING THE OFFICIAL WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE