Cunningham - Just a caution? : Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:52 am  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/st_helens/8159618.stm I am not sure that the RFL have got this correct. Although it did not look to much on the replay it was a hard enough punch to break Stosic's eye socket and more importantly it was a deliberate act. I think it should have been at least a one game ban, two maximum, but at least a ban?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/st_helens/8159618.stm I am not sure that the RFL have got this correct. Although it did not look to much on the replay it was a hard enough punch to break Stosic's eye socket and more importantly it was a deliberate act. I think it should have been at least a one game ban, two maximum, but at least a ban?

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:56 am  

I thought it was since confirmed he didn't break anything.

Putting my Saints dislike aside, I really didn't see anything in that incidnet that warranted a ban, whether the player got injured or not.

It probably should have been a penatly, and Alibert was poor not to see it. But it appeared the player was just trying to push off the other. He actually used the hand he had the ball in, which for me smacks of not intentially striking someone.

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:58 am  

Discussed a bit hereyesterday also.

Discussed a bit hereyesterday also.

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:02 am  

He lashed out in the tackle, something that happens umpteen times a game. On this occasion he happened to connect and do some damage - was that his intention, or was he just careless?

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:10 am  

tvoc wrote: Discussed a bit hereyesterday also. Thanks tvoc. Gotcha - Where is the link confirming it is not broken? The question becomes did the RFL disciplinary committee think at the time it was broken? They said it was intentional, so surely an intentional strike with what they thought was an injured player as a result did not deserve a ban? I only think it should have been a one match ban, but a ban none the less. If they had said it was unintentional and found him not guilty of a strike, then that would be different, but they feel it was intentional???

tvoc wrote: Discussed a bit hereyesterday also. Thanks tvoc. Gotcha - Where is the link confirming it is not broken? The question becomes did the RFL disciplinary committee think at the time it was broken? They said it was intentional, so surely an intentional strike with what they thought was an injured player as a result did not deserve a ban? I only think it should have been a one match ban, but a ban none the less. If they had said it was unintentional and found him not guilty of a strike, then that would be different, but they feel it was intentional???

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:16 am  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote: Thanks tvoc. Gotcha - Where is the link confirming it is not broken? http://www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/injury-update-i605926.html Got the all clear on Saturday (although Wakey decided to wait until after the disciplinary decision to let us all know, wonder why . . . . . ) Was a stupid lash out at the play the ball, and worthy of the caution it received.

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote: Thanks tvoc. Gotcha - Where is the link confirming it is not broken? http://www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/injury-update-i605926.html Got the all clear on Saturday (although Wakey decided to wait until after the disciplinary decision to let us all know, wonder why . . . . . ) Was a stupid lash out at the play the ball, and worthy of the caution it received.

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:16 am  

Andy Gilder wrote:

He lashed out in the tackle, something that happens umpteen times a game. On this occasion he happened to connect and do some damage - was that his intention, or was he just careless?

If they had said that they thought it was just a careless action and unintentional then, while I might disagree, then that would be that. But they said intentional? I do not know how you can say they feel it was intentional but we will let you off because you might not have been aiming for his eye???

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:28 am  

From the replays it looked like he lashed out a bit trying to get free of the tackler. It was a loss of composure which should probably have been penalised at the time, but the act itself was no worse than what happens in virtually every game. I don't think, from the replays, you could say it was a malicious act intended to injure an opponent. A slap on the wrist seems about fair really.

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:22 pm  

regardless of how hard the impact was he attempted to punch a player, end of. to me thats at least a ban as he has form

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:24 pm  

bewildered wrote:

regardless of how hard the impact was he attempted to punch a player, end of. to me thats at least a ban as he has form

Does he?

I'm sure you can back that up with a record of his previous trips in front of the disciplinary?