Re: O'Loughlin Grade C Charge : Wed Jul 13, 2016 7:30 pm  

Jack Kerley wrote:

Wrong. The panel was C Batty, I Butt and N Turley, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good story,

That's silenced a few , Lockers , Bateman and Big Frank ( possibly Gells )all ready to go against Saints , bring it on , "nobody likes us we don't care" see you all Friday

Re: O'Loughlin Grade C Charge : Wed Jul 13, 2016 7:39 pm  

drdnght wrote: According to Chris Chester they did not even ask for a medical report from Wakefield which has happended every time he has been to the disciplinary... http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/wakefield-trinity/exclusive-angry-wakefield-trinity-coach-chris-chester-brands-rfl-disciplinary-system-a-joke-1-8012895 I agree with him to be honest. There have been plenty of inconsistencies and now that the RFL seem obsessed with 'dangerous contact' the grades and punishments for those tackles now seem to be out of proportion with the more obvious high tackles and shoulder charges. It's frustrating that this is being used by some as apparent vindication for their 'RFL is pro-Wigan' tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theories, because we've seen this kind of thing many times before involving different players and different clubs. We need a serious review of the process. I imagine the chairman of the panel is the one responsible for requesting medical reports. It's possible that in these cases one may always ask for the report and one might never and no one has ever picked up on it. Or maybe I just have no faith in the RFL being well run.

drdnght wrote: According to Chris Chester they did not even ask for a medical report from Wakefield which has happended every time he has been to the disciplinary... http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/wakefield-trinity/exclusive-angry-wakefield-trinity-coach-chris-chester-brands-rfl-disciplinary-system-a-joke-1-8012895 I agree with him to be honest. There have been plenty of inconsistencies and now that the RFL seem obsessed with 'dangerous contact' the grades and punishments for those tackles now seem to be out of proportion with the more obvious high tackles and shoulder charges. It's frustrating that this is being used by some as apparent vindication for their 'RFL is pro-Wigan' tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theories, because we've seen this kind of thing many times before involving different players and different clubs. We need a serious review of the process. I imagine the chairman of the panel is the one responsible for requesting medical reports. It's possible that in these cases one may always ask for the report and one might never and no one has ever picked up on it. Or maybe I just have no faith in the RFL being well run.

Re: O'Loughlin Grade C Charge : Wed Jul 13, 2016 7:44 pm  

Jack Kerley wrote:

Wrong. The panel was C Batty, I Butt and N Turley, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good story,

Apparently Danny Sculthorpe replaced Neil Turley on the panel. Not that it adds much to the claims of bias since Sculthorpe has played for Wakefield.

Re: O'Loughlin Grade C Charge : Wed Jul 13, 2016 8:21 pm  

Cherry.Pie wrote:

Apparently Danny Sculthorpe replaced Neil Turley on the panel. Not that it adds much to the claims of bias since Sculthorpe has played for Wakefield.

Considering Sculthorpe left Wakey under bad terms I wouldn't expect him to have any kind of positive attachment to us.

Re: O'Loughlin Grade C Charge : Wed Jul 13, 2016 8:22 pm  

deeHell wrote:

Considering Sculthorpe left Wakey under bad terms I wouldn't expect him to have any kind of positive attachment to us.

Well, if you want to go and tell him he's "bent"...... Good luck..

Re: O'Loughlin Grade C Charge : Wed Jul 13, 2016 9:57 pm  

Tricky2309 wrote:

And no credit for you who can't seem to accept tbat a significant injury was caused by your players illegal challenge

Well I can, given that it did. I can see how you'd come to a different conclusion though, given I've said that knowledge of the injury would have resulted in an increased ban and that I agree with Chris Chester's comments about it being a farce. Sounds like I'm in denial.

Re: O'Loughlin Grade C Charge : Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:00 pm  

Cherry.Pie wrote:

Well I can, given that it did. I can see how you'd come to a different conclusion though, given I've said that knowledge of the injury would have resulted in an increased ban and that I agree with Chris Chester's comments about it being a farce. Sounds like I'm in denial.

Apologies cherry pie I didn't interpret your response properly and on reflection it us pretty clear

Re: O'Loughlin Grade C Charge : Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:29 pm  

I would like to point out that both Fielden and Sculthorpe have also both played against Lockers as well and that the injury caused to Annakin was not directly related to where Lockers made contact and could also have occurred in a fair tackle.

Re: O'Loughlin Grade C Charge : Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:45 am  

dr_feelgood wrote:

I would like to point out that both Fielden and Sculthorpe have also both played against Lockers as well and that the injury caused to Annakin was not directly related to where Lockers made contact and could also have occurred in a fair tackle.

He injured his knee whilst falling to the ground
He fell to the ground because he was unconscious
He was unconscious because he was hit by Locker's arm

So being knocked out by Lockers arm and being injured whilst falling to the ground was not directly related then....

Re: O'Loughlin Grade C Charge : Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:56 am  

I LOVE how this is still carrying on