[tb]

: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:48 am  

Hmm – KR getting short end of the stick, Saints being treated leniently because they're big … How does that tie in with this Percentage of games banned for in relation to players referred to disciplinary panel: Wakefield - 4 times referred, 8 matches banned: 200% Castleford - 5 times referred, 8 matches banned: 160% Wigan - 12 times referred, 12 matches banned: 100% St Helens - 3 times referred, 3 matches banned: 100% Quins - 9 times referred, 8 matches banned: 89% Catalans - 9 times referred, 8 matches banned: 89% Hudds - 7 times referred, 6 matches banned: 86% Warrington - 10 times referred, 8 matches banned: 80% Leeds - 8 times referred, 5 matches banned: 63% Bradford - 5 times referred, 3 matches banned: 60% Hull KR - 11 times referred, 4 matches banned: 36% Hull FC - 2 times referred, 0 matches banned: 0% Courtesy of Gazemous on the Cas board and Phil Clarke.

Hmm – KR getting short end of the stick, Saints being treated leniently because they're big … How does that tie in with this Percentage of games banned for in relation to players referred to disciplinary panel: Wakefield - 4 times referred, 8 matches banned: 200% Castleford - 5 times referred, 8 matches banned: 160% Wigan - 12 times referred, 12 matches banned: 100% St Helens - 3 times referred, 3 matches banned: 100% Quins - 9 times referred, 8 matches banned: 89% Catalans - 9 times referred, 8 matches banned: 89% Hudds - 7 times referred, 6 matches banned: 86% Warrington - 10 times referred, 8 matches banned: 80% Leeds - 8 times referred, 5 matches banned: 63% Bradford - 5 times referred, 3 matches banned: 60% Hull KR - 11 times referred, 4 matches banned: 36% Hull FC - 2 times referred, 0 matches banned: 0% Courtesy of Gazemous on the Cas board and Phil Clarke.

[Kosh]

: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:17 pm  

Gazemous wrote:

Wakefield - 4 times referred, 8 matches banned: 200%
Castleford - 5 times referred, 8 matches banned: 160%
Wigan - 12 times referred, 12 matches banned: 100%
St Helens - 3 times referred, 3 matches banned: 100%
Quins - 9 times referred, 8 matches banned: 89%
Catalans - 9 times referred, 8 matches banned: 89%
Hudds - 7 times referred, 6 matches banned: 86%
Warrington - 10 times referred, 8 matches banned: 80%
Leeds - 8 times referred, 5 matches banned: 63%
Bradford - 5 times referred, 3 matches banned: 60%
Hull KR - 11 times referred, 4 matches banned: 36%
Hull FC - 2 times referred, 0 matches banned: 0%

At last - proof that the RFL is in the pocket of Hull FC.

Mess with us at your peril.

: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:30 pm  

Gavin Miller - Legend wrote:

About 30 seconds tops and he got up and ran back into the defensive line when he realised he wasnt getting a penalty.

Congratulations. In accusing Morrison of faking, you win the prize for the most asinine piece of crap in the thread. Whilst the thread isn't finished yet, the judges recognise that the depths plumbed by your post could never be exceeded and so make this early award.

Well done!

: Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:11 pm  

As a died in the wool Rovers fan I think Morgan the club & fans should keep our mouths shut take the punishment & move on,The discaplinary have set the standard we can only complain if it is shown that down the weeks others are not hit with the same punishment. The Peacock incident is just passion & testosterone comming out & if the RFL are out to stop that kind of flash point in the game then they will ruin it, put 26 fit healthy young men in a confined area & let them run full tilt at each other for 80 minuets what do we expect? its part of the game. We only need to protect players from dangerous techniques like dangerous runing/ball carrying or dangerous tackles.

: Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:41 pm  

Have not read all postings, but it`s that `inconsistancy` word again and all clubs/players should be treated equally.

Peacock in brawl = yellow card is sufficient.

Quins v Catalan back end of 08 season, there is a punch up between Mogg and Quins players = Mogg and 3 Quins players all receive bans (yes 3......he must have been surrounded or something....like an old indian/wagon train movie)

Same offence........but treated differently.

: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:29 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Congratulations. In accusing Morrison of faking, you win the prize for the most asinine piece of crap in the thread. Whilst the thread isn't finished yet, the judges recognise that the depths plumbed by your post could never be exceeded and so make this early award.

Well done!

OK Fool

Re: RFL disciplinary strikes again : Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:17 pm  

MrPhilb wrote:

:lol: Ok then

He's right Chev Walker was charged with striking his opponent with his forearm, the Leeds player had his forearm viciously attacked by his opponents chin

: Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:20 pm  

Gazemous wrote:

And a quick calculation done when bored at work:

Percentage of games banned for in relation to players referred to disciplinary panel:

Wakefield - 4 times referred, 8 matches banned: 200%
Castleford - 5 times referred, 8 matches banned: 160%
Wigan - 12 times referred, 12 matches banned: 100%
St Helens - 3 times referred, 3 matches banned: 100%
Quins - 9 times referred, 8 matches banned: 89%
Catalans - 9 times referred, 8 matches banned: 89%
Hudds - 7 times referred, 6 matches banned: 86%
Warrington - 10 times referred, 8 matches banned: 80%
Leeds - 8 times referred, 5 matches banned: 63%
Bradford - 5 times referred, 3 matches banned: 60%
Hull KR - 11 times referred, 4 matches banned: 36%
Hull FC - 2 times referred, 0 matches banned: 0%

They're out to get us I swear...

It certainly shows that in the case of some clubs the video panel are a bit 'keen', the figures you show clearly show this.

[tb]

: Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:29 pm  

rover49 wrote:

It certainly shows that in the case of some clubs the video panel are a bit 'keen', the figures you show clearly show this.

eh?

: Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:31 pm  

tb wrote:

eh?

in short they dont like facts that dont agree with their arguments