Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:05 pm  

Haha what makes me laugh is that the MAJORITY (not all) of wire fans wouldn't be bothered if it had been the other way round and don't pretend you wouldn't.

Last game Bridge could have easily snapped Jeffries neck back with that forearm and there was intent in that. Similar with Chase's forearm (except he did damage). If Bridge gets 1 game and Chase 3-4 games then Bateman should get 2 games as I rekon its closer to Bridge's incident than Chases. But dont come on here saying you would be disgusted if it was a warrington player performing the tackle.

Imho I wouldn't ban it and don't see anything wrong particularly didnt put pressure on his neck it was spread out through the shoulders and chest mainly. He had Hodgson lifted slightly anyway then when ref shouted held he dropped on him (not picked him up then rammed him into the ground) but literally fell on him. If it had been a warrington player I wouldnt have been bothered just liek Carvells kicking, in my opinion (as a player at semi-pro) then I think that unless your legs go near the opposition head or groin then your okay, all it is is trying to get the player off you and regain your feet a few seconds quicker.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:09 pm  

The world has gone mad. Seriously.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:16 pm  

tigertot wrote:

It is the job of the panel to judge intent I would have thought. Is intent relevant? Bridge could claim he had no intent of breaking Jeffries jaw when he dropped his forearm on the ball in the previous game, Chase must have been judged not to deliberately smash whatshisface's jaw.

Depends what their leeway is with the ban, can they look at now its been sent through as Grade D and say "no intent" and ban him for less than 3 or do they have to either say nothing to answer or min 3 games?

If they are allowed to lower the Grade after the panel reviews it then I agree with you, send it through with intent and let them clear it up but if they can't then they should cite them the other way. Assume no intent and then let them ramp up the ban if they see intent while reviewing.

Anyone know what leeway they have?

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:52 pm  

wolfinwidnes wrote:

fev didnt get a penalty for rangis effort on ropati! thats what the on report system is used for when the ref suspects something has happened but didnt see it!

No, the ref seen it, he even said "no penalty but I'm putting it on report". How can the ref see a 3-5 game infraction but not call it? The idiocy is the ref if the challenge was so bad.

I don't think there was intent on Bateman's part, his actions after it were apologetic, which is more than what you'll get from most RL players.

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:04 pm  

he was apologetic cos he realised he was in the loving poop for a loving naughty person challenge,

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:27 pm  

Fantastic Mr Catpiss wrote:

yeah cos thats much better than potentially being in a wheelchair due to a severe neck injury.

It was a type of crusher tackle which as we all know are a big no no.

This years worst argument. I'd rather take potentially getting an ijnury and not ending up with an injury over getting a real life serious injury but in catpiss' world of make belief real life clearly doesn't count.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:32 pm  

IMO, Bateman was doing as every SL player does and that is, either playing to the whislte or in this instance playing until HELD is called, and I don't recall Childs calling held on that tackle, Bateman was trying to complete the tackle.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:51 pm  

There is only one person who really knows what the intention was.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:23 pm  

tigertot wrote:

There is only one person who really knows what the intention was.

You?

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:28 pm  

Maybe they should ban KP aswell, poor Hodgson might have bruised from that one.

The 'he might have got injured' line is a poor one, you could say that about every tackle. It's a contact sport. Funny how none of the Wire forwards came rushing in, they're not ones to let a dirty tackle go unnoticed.