Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:32 pm  

BackrowSaint wrote:

Not sure where you've got that from but grade D is 3-5 matches.

I made it up for comedy effect.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:37 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

From looking at it it appeared he picked Hodgson up and than slammed him down again. Hodgson was more or less in a kind of sitting position, it seemed to hurt him, albeit very temporarily, but no harm was done and nobody ran in to remonstrate with Bateman which they would have done had it been a bad one.

If he gets a ban it's way OTT in my book. Maybe a warning to take more care but to be guilty of a grade D suggests he set out to cause real damage.

How it is graded as worse than Chase's "tackle" is beyond me.

Baffling really.

He seems to drop his whole body weight onto Hodgson's head/kneck. It could have seriously injured Hodgson, though I'm sure that wasn't the intention. IIRC he is not looking at Hodgson when he commits the act which would suggest not deliberate.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:41 pm  

Jeff Lima:
"Incident considered Dangerous Contact on 41st minute (Moa)
Decision No charge
Details of Charge / Reason for NF Player places some weight on opponent’s neck/shoulder however then makes room for opponent’s head. Are significant contributions from attacking player and fellow defender in dynamics of tackle MRP - NFA"

All Bateman was trying to do was get the tackled player down on the floor. It loooked far worse than it was, and unless Bateman has a step in his chest, the only pressure on the neck/head will have been from the back rather than from the top.

Bateman was holding the player legitimately, he was trying to bring him to ground legitimately, it was just that due to the position the tackled player was putr in at that moment by Bateman, himself, and the other tackler he was lined up in a sort of sitting up configuartion. It was a silly thing to do, and he won't use that "technique again" but a telling off would be more than ample. As for Grade D? Absolutely ridiculous.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:44 pm  

You see this type of tackle every week. Why pick one instance out? The only thing that needs to come out from this is greater clarity of what is and is not acceptable! Look at people trying to dislodge a ball with their feet as a try is being scored. It happens regularly but rarely is it penalised!

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:47 pm  

Spannerz wrote:

You see this type of tackle every week. Why pick one instance out? The only thing that needs to come out from this is greater clarity of what is and is not acceptable! Look at people trying to dislodge a ball with their feet as a try is being scored. It happens regularly but rarely is it penalised!

In over 30 years I am struggling to remember a tackle like that.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:47 pm  

The only reason it's up before the beak is due to the stoppage in play. Had Hodgson been one of the "bigger" guys on the park I don't think the injury would have occurred. It wasn't clever, but it wasn't intentional either.

Sell him....misses more games than Langely

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:48 pm  

It's the 'intentional' part of it that baffles me.

OK, dangerous it may well have been, but there was not a jot of intent in that. Bizarre.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:50 pm  

Hmmm a tackle technique you'll see half a dozen times in a game (the player offended against scoring a vital try 2 minutes later) is a Grade D offence but leathering someone in the face with your elbow resulting in them requiring surgery and puts them out for four months is a Grade C offence?

Ask Brett Hodgson what he'd rather have been on the receiving end of. I'm sure he'd be much happier right now eating his food through a straw.

Wonder if John Bateman was wanted by Steve McNamara for the Exiles matches he'd be looking at a grade C offence or less? Of course not that would be unthinkable.

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:52 pm  

Details now up on RFL website:

"Incident considered Dangerous contact in 36th minute (Hodgson)
Decision Charge
Details of Charge / Reason for NF Law: 15.1(i) Detail: Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of his body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle Grade: D MRP - Referred to tribunal
Range of Recommended Sanctions in relation to Charged Grade* 3-5 matches"

This makes it as clear as mud.
15.1(i) is "(i) behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game.". The detail quoted in the citation is not in the rules.

15.1 (b) is the closest:
"when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly."

The choice of wording is therefore weird and inexplicable. Am I missing something? It reads as if they are quoting froma rule, which says such things - but it doesn't!?! Can you be up before the beak for a rule they just made up?!?

Re: Bateman Back at Red Hall : Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:02 pm  

tigertot wrote:

He seems to drop his whole body weight onto Hodgson's head/kneck. It could have seriously injured Hodgson, though I'm sure that wasn't the intention. IIRC he is not looking at Hodgson when he commits the act which would suggest not deliberate.

Well put and bang on from an arm chair neutral on Saturday (thats me BTW)