Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:46 pm  

Keith Swiftcorn wrote: Interesting summary. Why was Bailey charged with a Grade C offence? Have the sentencing guidelines changed SINCE 2010? On Field Compliance Sentencing Guidelines from 2010 15.1(i) Behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game - Grade D-E ... Deliberate physical contact with a match official. Grade D offences carry 3 to 5 match bans. Grade E offences carry 4 to 8 match bans. Try looking at the 2012 criteria... http://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... 0Final.pdf Deliberate contact with a match official is now Grade B-E, so a ban of 1-2 games would have been the recommendation had he been charged with a Grade B. It would appear the RFL have treated Webb's contact with the official and Bailey's as being entirely different in nature, hence Webb has been found guilty but not banned due to "entirely exceptional circumstances".

Keith Swiftcorn wrote: Interesting summary. Why was Bailey charged with a Grade C offence? Have the sentencing guidelines changed SINCE 2010? On Field Compliance Sentencing Guidelines from 2010 15.1(i) Behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game - Grade D-E ... Deliberate physical contact with a match official. Grade D offences carry 3 to 5 match bans. Grade E offences carry 4 to 8 match bans. Try looking at the 2012 criteria... http://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... 0Final.pdf Deliberate contact with a match official is now Grade B-E, so a ban of 1-2 games would have been the recommendation had he been charged with a Grade B. It would appear the RFL have treated Webb's contact with the official and Bailey's as being entirely different in nature, hence Webb has been found guilty but not banned due to "entirely exceptional circumstances".

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:50 pm  

Cab Crab wrote:

:lol:

NOT SHOVING THE OFFICIAL WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE

They say, 'different'

I say, 'give me detail'

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:05 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote: Try looking at the 2012 criteria... http://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... 0Final.pdf I wasn't aware of the updated guidelines, hence why I asked the question in the first place. Thanks for enlightening me. Andy Gilder wrote: Deliberate contact with a match official is now Grade B-E, so a ban of 1-2 games would have been the recommendation had he been charged with a Grade B. Which begs the question... what factors determined being charged with a Grade C offence instead of a Grade B? I'm guessing it was the accompanying petulant behaviour towards the referee after the initial shove?

Andy Gilder wrote: Try looking at the 2012 criteria... http://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... 0Final.pdf I wasn't aware of the updated guidelines, hence why I asked the question in the first place. Thanks for enlightening me. Andy Gilder wrote: Deliberate contact with a match official is now Grade B-E, so a ban of 1-2 games would have been the recommendation had he been charged with a Grade B. Which begs the question... what factors determined being charged with a Grade C offence instead of a Grade B? I'm guessing it was the accompanying petulant behaviour towards the referee after the initial shove?

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:16 pm  

Cab Crab wrote:

:lol:

NOT SHOVING THE OFFICIAL WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE

Yeah, some people are just downright rude aren't they?

Believe it or not there are some who are so rude or lazy that they can't be ars*d to use upper and lower case on their keyboards.

The result is they shout all the time and their posts look completely juvenile and inane.

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:34 pm  

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

Yeah, some people are just downright rude aren't they?

Believe it or not there are some who are so rude or lazy that they can't be ars*d to use upper and lower case on their keyboards.

The result is they shout all the time and their posts look completely juvenile and inane.

AND I AM BOTH

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:35 pm  

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

Yeah, some people are just downright rude aren't they?

Believe it or not there are some who are so rude or lazy that they can't be ars*d to use upper and lower case on their keyboards.

The result is they shout all the time and their posts look completely juvenile and inane.

Be carefull I kopped a week's ban because of this low life.

You do tend to get a headache when people shout all the time

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:53 pm  

Keith Swiftcorn wrote:

Wot a joke the rhinos club and Brian McDermott are for backing the decision of the RFL disciplinary panel on this matter and supporting bans on there players. So much for RFL having rhinos in they're pockets. Ridiculous, load of bollox, wot a stuff-up, no common sense, pathetic, shocking, laughable, farce, incompetent, inept, bizarre, crazy, indecent, silly, dubious, unacceptable, RFL apologists, ref apologists, clowns, typical anti-leeds bias by leeds, hope rhinos and mcdermott gets a game at Headingley soon while it's fresh in everyone's memory, bailey should knock McDermott on his ar5e for not backing him up, and don't get in the way of the RFL whatever you do cos they do what they want, rhinos club make RFU old farts look like mensa candidates, surely wilkin & peacocks shiny new union could of, would of and should of done something useful asking serious questions of club as to why they agreed with RFL about been treated more harshly for shoving a referee than they do for attacking a load of red herring 'ouch! my head' examples? Is referee's "safety" more paramount than any other red herrings on offer? I have no problem with him being banned for the contact on the ref, but it needs to be in proportion to other red herrings from this season, and three games is way OTT.

Well said... ETC.

If the Rhinos and McDermott had slammed the RFL disciplinary panel, you would have been slagging them off for not excepting the panels decision. They just can't win where your concerned.

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:04 pm  

On brighter note I suppose all the £300 fines that the RFL are collecting from all these disciplinary hearings will go along way to paying off their purchase of the wasteland that is Odsal.

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:16 pm  

Fieldheadrhino wrote:

If the Rhinos and McDermott had slammed the RFL disciplinary panel, you would have been slagging them off for not excepting the panels decision. They just can't win where your concerned.

Think you missed his point.

Re: Bailey & Webb Charged : Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:59 am  

Having finally seen the incident this morning, if Bailey had left Silverwood alone then the case for serious case of obstruction resides there