Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:05 pm  

old frightful wrote:

Charnley 2 matches and £300 fine.

Charnely pleads guilty gets two matches for something that at best was a fine. Tautai pleads not guilty and gets two matches for a tackle that was potentially career ending. Sorry both the system and the people involved are comical.

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:29 pm  

I thought it was a sending off offence for making contact with a match official? or have i got that wrong?

Either way, it should be clamped down on immediately!

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:47 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

the obvious issue is that they grade the offence, give a range of possible punishments, then go outside that.

If O'loughlin can get 1 game for the offence, then the range of punishments for that offence isnt 2-3 games its 1-3 games. That makes no sense. If there were mitigating circumstances then that is what means the punishment is at the bottom end for that grading, not that we suddenly ignore the grading.

You said it yourself, they're possible punishments, just a guide for the panel. Of course there are mitigating circumstances for every case.

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:49 pm  

Willzay wrote:

Charnely pleads guilty gets two matches for something that at best was a fine. Tautai pleads not guilty and gets two matches for a tackle that was potentially career ending. Sorry both the system and the people involved are comical.

I don't think its so much the people making the decisions (granted there have been one or two decisions that seems strange) but it's the grading. Its too leinient.

Stronger sentences should be handed out across the board. Cannonball tackles should be 10 games minimum.

Stuart Fielden said last night on radio yorkshire that it's the club's that can change that. They sign off the rules.

So instead of club chairman tweeting and moaning like a bloody teenagers,every week about the dsiclpinary, do something and get the rules changed.

They just throw the word consistency around but you're never going to get it as everyone disagrees on how long a player should be banned for

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:36 pm  

Wigg'n wrote:

You said it yourself, they're possible punishments, just a guide for the panel. Of course there are mitigating circumstances for every case.

But the mitigation should be the reason the ban is at the lower end of the scale, not off the scale completely.

Why bother having a range of punishments for each grading if the panel can then simply decide something else?

In fact why bother with gradings at all?

Realistically what the O'loughlin case shows (and i accept its not just him and Im not trying to show a Wigan bias or anything like that) is that the gradings are essentially meaningless. A Grade C head high tackle doesnt carry a 2-3 game ban, it carries a 0 to Sin Die ban, the same as grade A, B, D, E and F.

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:40 pm  

Willzay wrote:

Charnely pleads guilty gets two matches for something that at best was a fine. Tautai pleads not guilty and gets two matches for a tackle that was potentially career ending. Sorry both the system and the people involved are comical.

I get that Charnley didnt do an awful lot, and 2 games seems harsh

But his punishment isnt really for him, nor really was it to protect the referee. Its to protect the referee at youth and amateur level who dont have 15 cameras protecting them.

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:02 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

I get that Charnley didnt do an awful lot, and 2 games seems harsh

But his punishment isnt really for him, nor really was it to protect the referee. Its to protect the referee at youth and amateur level who dont have 15 cameras protecting them.

This. A thousand times this.

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:09 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

I get that Charnley didnt do an awful lot, and 2 games seems harsh

But his punishment isnt really for him, nor really was it to protect the referee. Its to protect the referee at youth and amateur level who dont have 15 cameras protecting them.

I get that to a point however the rules/punishments at pro level cannot be used in that way. They have to be for the benefit of the pro competition.

For instance I think most people don't want to see a stray high arm or the odd bit of a scrap harshly punished at pro level. But at amateur level they should be very very harshly punished.

The same goes for touching the ref. I'd have been happy with a sin binning for Charnley. I get that pro players can get very worked up. It's their livlihood's and a massive part of their life and who they are. They train all week and go through often huge amounts of pain and adversity (both physical and mental) to play at a weekend. So I can understand a player losing control and doing what Charnley did. (That doesn't mean I condone it nor that I think it should go unpunished).

However at amateur level NOBODY should be anywhere close to that level of mental amplitude. So the exact same incident should get a much, much higher punishment at amateur level than at pro level. That punishment at amateur level (along with changing the backward attitudes) is what will deter the actions at amateur level, not what happens in SL.

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:30 pm  

I don't really have much of a beef with the disciplinary, I don't see the majority of infringements to pass comment.

But how come Ben Cockayne put a shot on the Hull F.C. centre (after he'd passed the ball), yet gets away scot-free?

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:53 pm  

Him wrote:

I get that to a point however the rules/punishments at pro level cannot be used in that way. They have to be for the benefit of the pro competition.

For instance I think most people don't want to see a stray high arm or the odd bit of a scrap harshly punished at pro level. But at amateur level they should be very very harshly punished.

The same goes for touching the ref. I'd have been happy with a sin binning for Charnley. I get that pro players can get very worked up. It's their livlihood's and a massive part of their life and who they are. They train all week and go through often huge amounts of pain and adversity (both physical and mental) to play at a weekend. So I can understand a player losing control and doing what Charnley did. (That doesn't mean I condone it nor that I think it should go unpunished).

However at amateur level NOBODY should be anywhere close to that level of mental amplitude. So the exact same incident should get a much, much higher punishment at amateur level than at pro level. That punishment at amateur level (along with changing the backward attitudes) is what will deter the actions at amateur level, not what happens in SL.

Nah, Charnley is a professional. It is incumbent on him to control himself enough not to be grabbing a referee.

Amateur refs dont have 15 camera's there to decode whether the player grabbed them aggressively or passively, whether it was a grab or a punch, a barge or a push, the level of contact, the level of aggression. They are protected by the idea touching them is strictly prohibited, no if, buts or maybes, a strict liability offence.

Giving Charnley a slap on the wrist destroys that. I think its crazy to expect that minimising the punishment at pro level wont send out a message of increasing acceptability.