Re: This makes interesting reading.....Neil Hudgell : Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:19 pm  

Aldy wrote:

Missing vital evidence on several occasions when viewing a match DVD is not inconsistency it's incompetence

It could be, but we haven't heard the side of those alleged to have been incompetent though.

[Bulliac]

Re: This makes interesting reading.....Neil Hudgell : Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:30 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

It could be, but we haven't heard the side of those alleged to have been incompetent though.

That said, as the evidence was clearly there for those who wished to find it, they could only tell us the reason why they missed it and I'm not sure that would be sufficient to escape the charge..

Re: This makes interesting reading.....Neil Hudgell : Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:26 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

That said, as the evidence was clearly there for those who wished to find it, they could only tell us the reason why they missed it and I'm not sure that would be sufficient to escape the charge..

Was it? Anyway, as I say I've only heard one side of the story. This includes Hudgell saying:

“A leading international player this week avoided censure for repeated punching in the tackle, shown live on Sky Sports. Only a change in personnel, I believe, is capable of effecting the right change, and I call on the executive of the RFL to do that before a player suffers serious injury as a result of their inaction.

Now I know he's upset, but how can a player suffer injury, as a result of punches not being noticed on a video after the event? The player would be injured as a result of whatever the opponents did on the field, at the time. He'd already be injured. It would be nuts to blame the match review panel, whether they subsequently acted or failed to act has nothing to do with the injury?

Re: This makes interesting reading.....Neil Hudgell : Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:39 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Was it? Anyway, as I say I've only heard one side of the story. This includes Hudgell saying:
Now I know he's upset, but how can a player suffer injury, as a result of punches not being noticed on a video after the event? The player would be injured as a result of whatever the opponents did on the field, at the time. He'd already be injured. It would be nuts to blame the match review panel, whether they subsequently acted or failed to act has nothing to do with the injury?

Look I know you are on your usual 'I'm right' ego trip but you are aware Neil never actually said this right?

It's pretty clear he means that if players are judged consistently then a player may actually think 'I had better not do this' as he will know for SURE what he is going to get instead of him giving it a go and rolling the dice and possibly getting something meaningful depending how nice the board's breakfast was that morning or who he plays for. Well it's obvious to anyone who isn't self absorbed.

Re: This makes interesting reading.....Neil Hudgell : Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:06 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

Look I know you are on your usual 'I'm right' ego trip but you are aware Neil never actually said this right?

It's pretty clear he means that if players are judged consistently then a player may actually think 'I had better not do this' as he will know for SURE what he is going to get instead of him giving it a go and rolling the dice and possibly getting something meaningful depending how nice the board's breakfast was that morning or who he plays for. Well it's obvious to anyone who isn't self absorbed.

Whoah there tiger, why so bloody rude?

Self absorbed? What the fsck is that supposed to mean?

I would suggest that whatever failings the match review panel may have, the person who is truly self absorbed would be someone who suggests that they would act perversely for flippant reasons, or partiality or bias.

I would also suggest that if a player really does think about the possibility of getting away with it before deciding to drop a fellow player on his head then the order in which he might worry would be 1 will the ref see it 2 will the touchiest and any VR see it 3 will it be on video.

Anyone who suggests - as you appear to- that he may act differently on the basis that he has a perception that an unknown match review panel official might miss it on a video would be making a suggestion that is just silly.

Re: This makes interesting reading.....Neil Hudgell : Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:02 am  

Here's a petition to sign for all who agree with Neil Hudgell. http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/r ... ts-actions Please sign and share on Facebook and Twitter!

Here's a petition to sign for all who agree with Neil Hudgell. http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/r ... ts-actions Please sign and share on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: This makes interesting reading.....Neil Hudgell : Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:36 am  

I didn't agree wholeheartedly. I don't believe anyone is being driven away by any decisions by the disciplinary panel decisions. I have now read 7 teams who think the RFL have a bias against them. Get a life.

Re: This makes interesting reading.....Neil Hudgell : Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:56 am  

tigertot wrote:

I didn't agree wholeheartedly. I don't believe anyone is being driven away by any decisions by the disciplinary panel decisions. I have now read 7 teams who think the RFL have a bias against them. Get a life.

Easy to say when you're second from top. Also, 7 teams with bias against them? In a 14 team league? Doesn't look like a coincidence to me...

Re: This makes interesting reading.....Neil Hudgell : Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:55 pm  

ridlerbull wrote:

Easy to say when you're second from top. Also, 7 teams with bias against them? In a 14 team league? Doesn't look like a coincidence to me...

That's only because I am not allowed on the Wigan board & I don't go on the Catalan or London boards, otherwise it's a safe bet it would be up to ten or dix teams.

Re: This makes interesting reading.....Neil Hudgell : Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:07 pm  

510 teams? We're not in Australia...