Re: Albert Kelly : Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:32 pm  

The Kelly shot on Ashurst was a shocker - and the ref was perfectly sighted; quite why he decided to let this go, after he'd spoken to him earlier for a shoulder charge, is beyond me; but there you go - that's the nature of SL refereeing.

Re: Albert Kelly : Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:02 am  

Have sent the following to RFL

'Dear Sirs,

I note with interest that Hull player Albert Kelly was suspended for one match after entering an early Guilty Plea for a foul tackle on a Wakefield player in the recent game at Belle Vue.

This is all very well but in no way does it help Wakefield Trinity as this suspension will be served in his next game which is not against Wakefield.

I have long thought (57 years watching RL) that this system is unfair and was wondering if it would be possible for players who offend against a certain club to serve their suspension the next time those clubs meet?

I'm sure you are going to give me a mountain of reasons why this cannot happen but I and several others I have talked to think this would be a much fairer system.

I await your comments.

Many thanks.'

Wonder if I'll get a reply?

Re: Albert Kelly : Sun Feb 19, 2017 2:27 pm  

Sounds like a cracking idea to me

Re: Albert Kelly : Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:04 pm  

Finally got a reply from the RFL:-

Thanks for the e-mail, apologies for the slightly delayed response.
 
'It is our policy not to reply to individuals around their questions and queries regarding the disciplinary system and process.
 
All cases are heard by the independent Operational Rules Tribunal.
 
By following the link below you can view a summary of this process and all current on field charges'

Very helpful.......not.

Re: Albert Kelly : Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:19 pm  

Two Points wrote:

Finally got a reply from the RFL:-

Thanks for the e-mail, apologies for the slightly delayed response.
 
'It is our policy not to reply to individuals around their questions and queries regarding the disciplinary system and process.
 
All cases are heard by the independent Operational Rules Tribunal.
 
By following the link below you can view a summary of this process and all current on field charges'

Very helpful.......not.

I suppose they were hardly going to say, "good idea."

The reason it wouldn't work is because a player may never play against that side again. It could be in a cup game in a lower division. It could be a player about to retire, both actually and in the Denny Solomona sense, or join the NRL. A player could be injured for the next scheduled fixture. A player could move clubs and it would then penalise the coach and team who weren't managing him when the transgression was committed.

What does seem ludicrous is that a player can stay on the field for something that merits a ban. Start using the sin bin more and players will clean up their act.

Re: Albert Kelly : Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:05 am  

If it had enough for a ban, maybe the red card should be used more often, therefore giving the victims club a more suited result.

Re: Albert Kelly : Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:40 pm  

djcool wrote:

If it had enough for a ban, maybe the red card should be used more often, therefore giving the victims club a more suited result.

A yellow and then on report would do, rather than a penalty (maybe) and then nothing.
Serving the ban the next time the 2 clubs meet is a great idea in theory but, if it's during the second half of the season, that player could well have moved on etc.
The disciplinary is there to punish and deter, although, sometimes it seems to do neither (Sean O Loughlin last season springs to mind).

Re: Albert Kelly : Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:22 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

A yellow and then on report would do, rather than a penalty (maybe) and then nothing.
Serving the ban the next time the 2 clubs meet is a great idea in theory but, if it's during the second half of the season, that player could well have moved on etc.
The disciplinary is there to punish and deter, although, sometimes it seems to do neither (Sean O Loughlin last season springs to mind).

We (Hull) were on the receiving end of this against Saints Friday.
dominic peyroux with late shoulder charge to the head of Sneyd getting away with a penalty despite it being in full view of the touchie and ref AND the vid referee being able to see the extent of the incident. Similarly Alex Wormsley comes in late with the knees into Tumuvavai as he's already scored (which gave us an 8 pointer) but a defenceless player again being attacked with the knees is a sin bin all day long in my book.
We had (and rightly so) Jansin Turgut binned for use of the elbow to the head in reaction to getting a little facial off the tackled Saints player.
sh ithouse reaction that i hate to see and is totally unecessary, he'll probably get two game ban but at least he got sin-binned at the time. That the Saints players didn't for what are equally if not more serious in terms of injury shows how inconsistant things are.
And as we speak the disciplinary have graded turguts as a Grade C, Warmsley's knees a grade A and the late high shoulder charge to the head by Peyroux isn't cited at all.
It's all rubbish tbh no matter what team you are, well except the pie eating sc um

Re: Albert Kelly : Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:44 pm  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

We (Hull) were on the receiving end of this against Saints Friday.
dominic peyroux with late shoulder charge to the head of Sneyd getting away with a penalty despite it being in full view of the touchie and ref AND the vid referee being able to see the extent of the incident. Similarly Alex Wormsley comes in late with the knees into Tumuvavai as he's already scored (which gave us an 8 pointer) but a defenceless player again being attacked with the knees is a sin bin all day long in my book.
We had (and rightly so) Jansin Turgut binned for use of the elbow to the head in reaction to getting a little facial off the tackled Saints player.
sh ithouse reaction that i hate to see and is totally unecessary, he'll probably get two game ban but at least he got sin-binned at the time. That the Saints players didn't for what are equally if not more serious in terms of injury shows how inconsistant things are.
And as we speak the disciplinary have graded turguts as a Grade C, Warmsley's knees a grade A and the late high shoulder charge to the head by Peyroux isn't cited at all.
It's all rubbish tbh no matter what team you are, well except the pie eating sc um

Take all what you say on board......but we didn't even get a sodding penalty for Kelly's high shot and the one on bjb

Re: Albert Kelly : Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:50 pm  

I suppose the only way is to send the offending player off. No doubt that would upset somebody and the players would do even more gobbing off to the ref than they do now (something else that needs clamping down on).