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.
Of course it's relevant, if the ref had shouted held, Bateman would have stopped doing what he was doing and it would never have happened!
Secondly it's relevant because before the ref has shouted 'held' Bateman is entirely within his rights to continue to get the opponent on the deck and he did what he did in the attempt to do just that.
tigertot wrote:
I do realise that no Bulls player has ever deliberately commited foul play & that there is a RFL conspiracy against them.
rhinosgirl wrote:
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.
Sorry, but that's rubbish. We watch someone do something, we all immediately form a view as to whether we think they did it deliberately, accidentally, or recklessly. The same judgements must be made by the referee and officials. The same judgements must be made by the disciplinary in arriving at their judgment.
What you seem to be suggesting is absurd. Only one player can say what he intended, that is Bateman, and everyone has to take his word since no-one else knows what's in his head?? Do you really think that? Can you see a flaw at all?
