: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:45 pm  

MrPhilb wrote:

So what is the difference between the two?

Don't know - one plays for Leeds?

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:18 pm  

bullsfan4ever wrote:

Don't know - one plays for Leeds?

[Bullseye]

Re: Chev Walker cited : Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:22 am  

MrPhilb wrote:

Well seeing as though this snapshot can't be that long after i think its safe to decipher that there is no intent or malice.

How do you know it can't be that long? Only a video replay would tell the whole story, you don't appear to have seen that so your evidence is patchy.

Re: chev walker banned : Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:35 am  

mat wrote:

one match ban according to sportinglife

So he commits the offence against us, then is banned for one match, thus weakening the team for their match against our rivals.
Its a good system this.

: Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:40 am  

KR to appeal according to this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 895816.stm It seems unfair that Bailey got a letter, and Walker a ban. Don't tell me that the RFL are being inconsistent....

KR to appeal according to this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 895816.stm It seems unfair that Bailey got a letter, and Walker a ban. Don't tell me that the RFL are being inconsistent....

Re: Chev Walker cited : Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:04 am  

MrPhilb wrote:

Well seeing as though this snapshot can't be that long after i think its safe to decipher that there is no intent or malice.

After isn't the same as during, and during isn't the same as the incident. You can only do this stuff by moving images, not stills.

: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:53 am  

debaser wrote: KR to appeal according to this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 895816.stm It seems unfair that Bailey got a letter, and Walker a ban. Don't tell me that the RFL are being inconsistent.... why exactly? I've seen the Bailey incident and Bailey did not deliberately raise his arm and lead into the challenge. With the difference in height and running style and position of ball under his arm there was no malice. But yet again as its Bailey you all start blowing. As for chev On review of the incident the match review panel believed that the Player had raised his forearm whilst in possession of the ball, striking the Bradford player attempting to tackle him. The MRP was concerned that the player had promoted the forearm in a dangerous manner, that the forearm connected with the chin or jaw of the Bradford player, and that the use of the forearm in this manner had some potential for injury. to me that would suggest he deliberately raised his forearm. i really wish people would take off their rose tinted glasses, it gets ever so tiring

debaser wrote: KR to appeal according to this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 895816.stm It seems unfair that Bailey got a letter, and Walker a ban. Don't tell me that the RFL are being inconsistent.... why exactly? I've seen the Bailey incident and Bailey did not deliberately raise his arm and lead into the challenge. With the difference in height and running style and position of ball under his arm there was no malice. But yet again as its Bailey you all start blowing. As for chev On review of the incident the match review panel believed that the Player had raised his forearm whilst in possession of the ball, striking the Bradford player attempting to tackle him. The MRP was concerned that the player had promoted the forearm in a dangerous manner, that the forearm connected with the chin or jaw of the Bradford player, and that the use of the forearm in this manner had some potential for injury. to me that would suggest he deliberately raised his forearm. i really wish people would take off their rose tinted glasses, it gets ever so tiring

Re: Chev Walker cited : Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:25 pm  

MrPhilb wrote:

Obviously you were seeing things

As the people above have already said one frame doesn't tell the whole story. This is obviously taken a fraction of a second after the incident. In my opinion he went into the tackle with the intent of raising the elbow. This could have easily resulted in a broken jaw.

: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:32 pm  

bewildered wrote:

why exactly? I've seen the Bailey incident and Bailey did not deliberately raise his arm and lead into the challenge. With the difference in height and running style and position of ball under his arm there was no malice. But yet again as its Bailey you all start blowing.

As for chev



to me that would suggest he deliberately raised his forearm. i really wish people would take off their rose tinted glasses, it gets ever so tiring

Is that someone with sense? I would hazard a guess that about 70% of the people commenting on the Bailey incidnet haven't seen it. But as soon as some of you see Ryan Bailey- raised forearm, that's it he must be quilty.

But hey let's not allow reasoning to get in the way of a good argument eh?

: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:53 pm  

Quagmire wrote:

Is that someone with sense? I would hazard a guess that about 70% of the people commenting on the Bailey incidnet haven't seen it. But as soon as some of you see Ryan Bailey- raised forearm, that's it he must be quilty.

But hey let's not allow reasoning to get in the way of a good argument eh?

Whats reasoning got to do with anything? This is the RLFans board isn't it? Thought we had to leave all reasoning at the door.

But yes Bailey+raised forearm=guilty. Definately.