Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Tue May 01, 2012 6:39 am  

debaser wrote:

You?

As usual I'm talking more sense than most but I'm about 70/30 sure not deliberate on this one.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Tue May 01, 2012 6:50 am  

Ewwenorfolk wrote:

The 'he might have got injured' line is a poor one, you could say that about every tackle.

Funny that. Because with the Bridge incident where there was less injury to the opposition player you said:

he should have a 1 or 2 game ban.

Where's the consistency? It's a joke &/or a disgrace.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Tue May 01, 2012 8:20 am  

If a careless and mistimed tackle that has no intent behind it and ultimately leads to the ball carrier going head first into the ground results in a ban then I really don't see what the difference is here. Bateman dropped onto the top of Hodgson's spine and it could have been a lot worse than it fortunately was.

I don't think there was any malicious intent but it was still dangerous.

[Bullseye]

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Tue May 01, 2012 8:55 am  

Did he really drop onto his spine? I must watch it again. It seemed to me he had Hodgson in a kind of bear hug and dropped him into the ground ar5e first. It looked fairly inocuous as Hodgson wasn't lifted more than a few inches and Bateman wasn't forcing his whole weight onto him.

I would agree that it looked like one of those types of tackles you see more of nowadays when the defender is imposing on the attacker to dominate the collision and slow the PTB down using some kind hold that makes the defender unable to move at all. However these sorts of challenges are increasingly common, yet not penalised consistently.

I can see why the grading exists for certain challenges however it looks to me like Bateman's challenge was very much toward the lesser end of the scale when it comes to danger. Hodgson wasn't lifted feet from the ground and slammed into it. Even a minimum of 3 game suspension seems very OTT to me when these sorts of challenges go on a lot (albeit few end up with the medical team coming on).

If Bateman does get a suspension (and it looks like 3 games is the minimum thanks to the inflexible weighting the RFL have got themselves) then I would hope to see this sort of tackle outlawed a lot more and more consistency from the officials (stop laughing).

Once again I think we've got a raw deal here. If Bateman deserves a ban it certainly shouldn't be more than a game or two at the most. To give him more than that makes this incident look much worse than it was and highlights the ridiculous comparison with the Chase incident that everyone bar the RFL seems to think was under-punished.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Tue May 01, 2012 9:09 am  

Bullseye wrote:

.

As I saw it (several times thanks to replays on TV) the tackle was effectively complete, it had nothing to do with the lifting. Bateman dropped on Hodgson to slow PTB, but Hodgson was sat upright so he landed on his head/kneck. I didn't see the Chase incident live but on video it looks terrible. Possibly the consequences from the RFL judging it deliberate were too much for them to contemplate.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Tue May 01, 2012 9:58 am  

tigertot wrote:

As I saw it (several times thanks to replays on TV) the tackle was effectively complete,

BUT THE REF HAD NOT CALLED 'HELD'

tigertot wrote:

it had nothing to do with the lifting. Bateman dropped on Hodgson to slow PTB, but Hodgson was sat upright so he landed on his head/kneck. ..

Correct, but I don't think there is any way Bateman intended to do what he ended up doing, which was a fluke due to the unfortunate coincidence that as he did what he did, the tackled player happened to line up in an exactly vertical position.

I am sure neither player thought there was any malice in it, and I'm equally sure that Bateman was sorry for the result of his effort, as he went out of his way to apologise immediately afterwards. It looks like everyone who saw it "live" including the fans and the players didn't think (regardless of the result) Bateman had done anything malicious, which is why nobody came charging in or remonstrating.

Nor did the ref, or the linesmen, all of whom we presume were watching the game, call for a penalty. So they all saw it same as us.

I do presume it went on report due to yet more VR interference in the process, but even without that, the way things are going the Match review lot would have singled Bateman out anyway. I expect that if one of our players farted in a scrum he'd be at Red Hall on Tuesday.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Tue May 01, 2012 10:27 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

BUT THE REF HAD NOT CALLED 'HELD'

Hence the word 'effectively'. The chances of Hodgson suddenly jumping to his feet with 2 men on his back (or kneck) were slim. My statement was in response to Sam who questioned whether the offence was in relation to Hodgson being lifted & dropped.
It is irrelevant as regards the suggested offence if he was held or not.

I do realise that no Bulls player has ever deliberately commited foul play & that there is a RFL conspiracy against them.

[Bullseye]

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Tue May 01, 2012 11:00 am  

tigertot wrote:

Hence the word 'effectively'. The chances of Hodgson suddenly jumping to his feet with 2 men on his back (or kneck) were slim. My statement was in response to Sam who questioned whether the offence was in relation to Hodgson being lifted & dropped.
It is irrelevant as regards the suggested offence if he was held or not.

I do realise that no Bulls player has ever deliberately commited foul play & that there is a RFL conspiracy against them.

But until the ref calls held you know very well that plenty still goes on in the tackle, especially nowadays. Of course he wasn't about to jump to his feet but I expect he was trying to get into a position where he could make a quicker PTB and Bateman was doing his best to prevent that. You're saying I think that what Bateman did was foul play regardless?

If that's right then why was there no penalty or any sign of players coming into remonstrate with Bateman? The reaction was pretty much nil from all concerned.

Given that then how can he suddenly be up for as much as a 5 match ban?

If he gets a worse ban than Chase then it just goes to show the RFL disciplinary committee is more out of touch than it's ever been and I would say it brings them into disrepute.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Tue May 01, 2012 11:01 am  

IMO it was a poor tackle, clumsily executed. I certainly don't think it warrants the severity of the charge.

What I don't think anyone can comment on is intent though. Only one person can comment on that and that is the player during the hearing. As much as you can say as a fan "he's not that sort of player, there's no intent" - fact is that no one really knows what is going through a player's head on the pitch.

And I'm absolutely NOT saying I think he had intent but just that I don't think trying to judge an individual's motives is necessarily useful.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Tue May 01, 2012 11:25 am  

rhinosgirl wrote:

IMO it was a poor tackle, clumsily executed. I certainly don't think it warrants the severity of the charge.

I agree with this. As is often the case in most things, the truth is somewhere between the extremes of "Nowt wrong with it, we might as well play tiddlywinks" and "Bateman tried to rape him to death".