Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:01 pm  

I may be shot down here but if a team can get away with tackles like that and thug tactics and it works, why wouldn't they continue to do so? I hate those tactics and they need stamping out but you can't blame them for using them if they aren't being punished. The people who need to receive the flack are the RFL. They almost seem like they don't want to upset the big clubs because having them onside preserves the status quo. In short, nothing will change unless the big clubs want it.

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 26, 2016 2:20 pm  

LifeLongHKRFan wrote:

I may be shot down here but if a team can get away with tackles like that and thug tactics and it works, why wouldn't they continue to do so? I hate those tactics and they need stamping out but you can't blame them for using them if they aren't being punished. The people who need to receive the flack are the RFL. They almost seem like they don't want to upset the big clubs because having them onside preserves the status quo. In short, nothing will change unless the big clubs want it.

Not at all. The RFL should rightly receive criticism for encouraging these tackles and techniques but the players and coaches are ultimately to blame for deliberately trying to seriously injure another player. It's not playing tough. It's not being ruthless. It's just being scum who have no place in our sport.

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 26, 2016 2:57 pm  

Him wrote:

Not at all. The RFL should rightly receive criticism for encouraging these tackles and techniques but the players and coaches are ultimately to blame for deliberately trying to seriously injure another player. It's not playing tough. It's not being ruthless. It's just being scum who have no place in our sport.

Indeed, by not banning players for certain tackles and indiscretions, The RFL are actually condoning them.
Also, the appeal system is completely flawed as it seems to allow an appeal without consequence and on this basis, every club should appeal every decision as there seems to be very little reason for not appealing.
Surely, there should be the chance on appeal that a ban could be increased ?

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 26, 2016 3:29 pm  

I would change the appeal process so that if you fail your appeal you add a game on to the ban. It would mean clubs would only appeal if they absolutely knew their player was being dealt with harshly.

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:46 pm  

secondstanza wrote:

I would change the appeal process so that if you fail your appeal you add a game on to the ban. It would mean clubs would only appeal if they absolutely knew their player was being dealt with harshly.

I think the disciplinary needs a complete overhaul its too much in favour of the offender instead of the victim, it needs to be set up as a proper deterrent to reduce foul play. The system is too variable should be more simple and direct.
They should look at the offence and not the history of the offender, a bad head tackle is the same whether he has played the game for 15 days or 15 years. I would also remove the EGP.

Direct contact with head should start at 6 matches.
Direct eye gouging should start at 10 matches.
Cannonball and Chicken Wing Tackles start at 12 matches.
Contact with Ref start at 15 matches.

Then we can start an appeal process based on "innocence evidence without doubt".

It needs to be a good enough deterrent for the clubs, coaches and players to realise that the game needs to be more disciplined to protect the players welfare. I seem to remember we had a fair play index quite a few years back, this should be re-introduced to monitor which clubs are in compliance. As an example if a club has 4 eye gouging incidents one season then chairman, coach and player should be brought into the discipline advisory.

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:50 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

I think the disciplinary needs a complete overhaul its too much in favour of the offender instead of the victim, it needs to be set up as a proper deterrent to reduce foul play. The system is too variable should be more simple and direct.
They should look at the offence and not the history of the offender, a bad head tackle is the same whether he has played the game for 15 days or 15 years. I would also remove the EGP.

Direct contact with head should start at 6 matches.
Direct eye gouging should start at 10 matches.
Cannonball and Chicken Wing Tackles start at 12 matches.
Contact with Ref start at 15 matches.

Then we can start an appeal process based on "innocence evidence without doubt".

It needs to be a good enough deterrent for the clubs, coaches and players to realise that the game needs to be more disciplined to protect the players welfare. I seem to remember we had a fair play index quite a few years back, this should be re-introduced to monitor which clubs are in compliance. As an example if a club has 4 eye gouging incidents one season then chairman, coach and player should be brought into the discipline advisory.

I would also remove the guilty plea however I wouldn't ignore past behavior, it's just flip it. Add games on for previous. As you say, the offense is bad whether 15 days or 15 years, but the punishment can't be the same if it's the first offense or the 10th so rather than reduce the games, tack it on for each time you're done for it.

Direct contact with the head starting at 6 matches is a tad over the top since "contact with the head" ranges from barely any contact to knocking someone out cold. Using my team - for all the noise at the ground on Friday, that Sam Tomkins high tackle was very light contact and something you see all the time and certainly not worthy of anything but an on field penalty. Sean O'Loughlin's "tackle" however and 6 games seems to be fair.

The other two, gouging and cannonball/chicken wing are fair enough but there needs to be clear ruling on what is a cannonball tackle, dangerous contact and what simply a 3rd man in.

You mention player welfare yet contact with the ref carries a 2.5x higher minimum sentence than direct contact with the head. Contact with the referee against can range. Josh Chanrley tapping the ref on the arm is worth missing half the season? For contact that isn't aggressive I think 2 matches is fair and then increase for the type of contact - as long as it's intentional. Player welfare is obviously important and that needs to be reflected in the disciplinary. Whilst contact with the ref is serious, it's not causing any harm to anyone involved.

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:56 pm  

secondstanza wrote:

Yet when Flower had a "brain fart" it was a sign of how Wane coached the whole team. You can't have it both ways.

I'm definitely more attentive at games (which being in London I don't often get to do so) and I counted 2 for both Wigan and Saints of players going in at the knees of a stood up opponent at an angle. Mossop and Isa were the culprits on Wigans end, not sure of the Saints players but possibly second rowers? Tomkins' "horrendous" high tackle wasn't cited yet Matty Flemmings tackle in the air earned him a caution. They're under the microscope without a doubt, some of it justified - I remember a few game trot where quite a few players were chicken winging but then some of it is stuff happens week in week out at every game but Wigan are the ones who get brandished "thugs" for doing it.

I'm not going to say they're not deliberately not coached because I simply don't know - All I will say is if Wigan are they certainly aren't the only ones.

The "Roadkill Achieved" actually went hand in hand with a picture of a Wigan player, ball in hand, who'd steamrollered a defender - hence roadkill. Wether that makes the poster better or not I don't know but I'd certainly like to think professionals in the sport can work out a bit of hyperbole.

I'm not having it both ways. Flower's incident is nothing to do with Wigan's third man tackling technique.

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:58 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

You should write to the RFL and tell them to overlook your players' transgressions on the grounds of them being "brainfarts". I mean what's an attempted gouge or a fractured eye socket eh? Maybe ask them to only punish Wigan fouls!

You're still completely missing the point!

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:12 pm  

secondstanza wrote:

Direct contact with the head starting at 6 matches is a tad over the top since "contact with the head" ranges from barely any contact to knocking someone out cold. Using my team - for all the noise at the ground on Friday, that Sam Tomkins high tackle was very light contact and something you see all the time and certainly not worthy of anything but an on field penalty. Sean O'Loughlin's "tackle" however and 6 games seems to be fair.

If we use the head tackle as an example, the start point at a 6 match ban is the deterrent to make players stay away from the head, the club would use the new appeal process to reduce the ban based on circumstance. At the moment on average its a 3 match ban, quite often an EGP is used then an appeal ending up with a 1 match ban whilst the victim has the risk of concussion causing problems later in his career.
If a club wants to "play hard" and gets it wrong, then there is a "hard penalty" to pay. At the moment foul play is very much accepted and the punishment is weak, a strong enough deterrent will make the coach/player think its too much to risk.

Re: Any chance for the disciplinary panel to redeem themsel : Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:21 am  

Wigan's Embarrassing Viewpoint Quote to the Disciplinary.

Player accompanied by Assistant Coach John Winder. Pleads not guilty to punching with a clenched fist. Concedes there was striking with an open hand to opponents face as a result of provocation. There had been other incidents in the same game between both players that had been dealt with. Matters appeared to have calmed down to some form of normality. The opponent then in an aggressive manner approaches the player and touches his face in a provocative manner. The player reacts by pushing his open hand towards the opponent and there is minimal contact with the opponents face. This is not a violent strike and the effect is not substantial.

We know it was a soft punch, but claiming an open hand push..........is taking the mick.