Re: RFL disciplinary strikes again : Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:00 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

no no, your right, its all a big conspiracy so you lose against us next week,

hence the banning of that superstar Chev Walker and we are allowed to play the guy who is clearly our best player, much better than Mcguire, Burrow, Senior, Webb, Diskin, Buderus Lauitiiti, Peacock, Sinfield that world class creative fulcrum Ryan bloody Bailey

pull your head out of your booty, if this is a conspiracy, its a pointless and rubbish one

Come again?

Re: RFL disciplinary strikes again : Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:00 pm  

moxi1 wrote:

Come again?

not tonight big boy

i have a headache

Re: RFL disciplinary strikes again : Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:01 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

not tonight big boy

i have a headache

Ah best leave you alone then, them headaches are known to be killers.

Re: RFL disciplinary strikes again : Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:02 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

I think it's been pointed out that they weren't the same offence though, but it has clearly annoyed you so something was right

How is it not the same offence?

One gets a letter for leading with the forearm/elbow and one is banned for leading with the forearm/elbow.

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: RFL disciplinary strikes again : Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:02 pm  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote: Wasn't Ben Westwood the ball carrier when he whacked a rovers player and got rightly banned a couple of years ago? Best laugh was Justin Morgan, who stated on radio humberside that rovers were going to appeal. On what grounds? Because they didn't liek the outcome? Watch out for an extention to that ban Funnily enough, i was only reading that thread last week http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?t=277405 great read.

Mild mannered Janitor wrote: Wasn't Ben Westwood the ball carrier when he whacked a rovers player and got rightly banned a couple of years ago? Best laugh was Justin Morgan, who stated on radio humberside that rovers were going to appeal. On what grounds? Because they didn't liek the outcome? Watch out for an extention to that ban Funnily enough, i was only reading that thread last week http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?t=277405 great read.

Re: RFL disciplinary strikes again : Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:14 pm  

Rictoria Catpiss wrote: Funnily enough, i was only reading that thread last week http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?t=277405 great read. Ahh, the infamous "warrington players gave us 14 broken jaws" from Morgan which later recounts actually showed there to be be zero.

Rictoria Catpiss wrote: Funnily enough, i was only reading that thread last week http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?t=277405 great read. Ahh, the infamous "warrington players gave us 14 broken jaws" from Morgan which later recounts actually showed there to be be zero.

Re: RFL disciplinary strikes again : Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:44 pm  

Neil HFC wrote:

Ahh, the infamous "warrington players gave us 14 broken jaws" from Morgan which later recounts actually showed there to be be zero.

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:51 pm  

I don't know why there is this passionate defense of the disciplinary panel all of a sudden. It's proven itself quite often to be quite preposterous. Who was it who got away with a kung fu kick? Wild?

It's the RFL, it's bound to be badly implemented.

How is it not the same offence?

Smokey seems to be arguing that it isn't the same offense, because it involved two different people. The naivety of this is staggering.

You are using a comparison between two similar events. That means you have to use two seperate events because using the same one twice wouldn't make it a comparison. The fact that you are using a similar offence to establish your point is the gist of your argument. One offense was punished properly, the other wasn't.

The logic at work here is, to be frank, jaw dropping. If he cannot get his head around your point and work from there, he is stupid. If he can and yet chooses to come up with the response he did as a joke, he isn't funny. He's onto a loser either way.

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:06 pm  

Chris Dalton wrote:

I don't know why there is this passionate defense of the disciplinary panel all of a sudden. It's proven itself quite often to be quite preposterous. Who was it who got away with a kung fu kick? Wild?

It's the RFL, it's bound to be badly implemented.



Smokey seems to be arguing that it isn't the same offense, because it involved two different people. The naivety of this is staggering.

You are using a comparison between two similar events. That means you have to use two seperate events because using the same one twice wouldn't make it a comparison. The fact that you are using a similar offence to establish your point is the gist of your argument. One offense was punished properly, the other wasn't.

The logic at work here is, to be frank, jaw dropping. If he cannot get his head around your point and work from there, he is stupid. If he can and yet chooses to come up with the response he did as a joke, he isn't funny. He's onto a loser either way.

they quite clearly arent the same offence, they may be similar offences, even very similar but quite clearly not the same,

the evidence for this is quite obviously common sense!

the rfl have judged one to be a more severe offence, whether you agree or not, it is in no way evidence of any kind of conspiracy it would take a monumental level of paranoid idiocy to believe it would, so well done on that

what you seem to be proposing, is that all offences listed under deliberately broad titles are punished the same regardless of severity, which is a fairly preposterous ideaand to steal a phrase the naivety of this is staggering

both were cited under offences of the mildest variety, one recieved the minimum banning sanction under that offence, the other the strictes none-banning sanction under that offence

its fairly clear, to anybody other than the paranoid, delusional, or just plain stupid, that one offence was judged a little worse than the other, one strayed passed the line according to an independant panel of judges with much more experience than any of us, disagree with the punishment all you like, but it takes a special kind of self fulfilling logic usually reserved for religious fundementalists and those who devote their lives looking for elvis to believe it was evidence of the RFLs bias

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:15 pm  

It is nonsense just to state that the offence was the same.

Two players up for high tackles often get different sentences, as they will not be the same.

Anybody who thinks Peacock deserves a ban for his brawl in the scrum wants their head testing.