: Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:24 pm  

The board may be inconsistent on occassion but it does not mean if someone slams a kid's head, or any player's head, into the floor they should just let them get away with it. Each individual case is judged on its own merit.

Those who are questioning the decison on Cunningham should look at other rulings on punches thrown this season. 'Man on man confrontation' this season (i.e. not a mass brawl, just two players involved) has been treated the same. Was Peacock banned for iit? No, warning letter. Peek banned? No, warning letter. Gilmour banned? No warning letter. Not that I agree with it, just that there is no special treatment going on, it's been dealt with the same all season.

Just as slamming people's heads into the ground, or spearing a player into the ground head first has always warranted a punishment.

: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:05 pm  

saints fan!
nothing to do with that at all, its just the O'loughlin has not been playing much at moment so the head tackle technique that gets ignored by everybody from the refs to eddie and stevo is not such a talking point

Nobody is denying that a head shot on anyone should be punished and each case looked at in its own merit
Back to cunningham tho, he must have had to take a bit of a jump to hit Karl Temata oops nope it went unpunished
thats the only complaint!
An offence that deserves a 2 match ban should have resulted in at least a yellow card on the day

: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:32 pm  

Legless wrote:

The board may be inconsistent on occassion but it does not mean if someone slams a kid's head, or any player's head, into the floor they should just let them get away with it. Each individual case is judged on its own merit.

Those who are questioning the decison on Cunningham should look at other rulings on punches thrown this season. 'Man on man confrontation' this season (i.e. not a mass brawl, just two players involved) has been treated the same. Was Peacock banned for iit? No, warning letter. Peek banned? No, warning letter. Gilmour banned? No warning letter. Not that I agree with it, just that there is no special treatment going on, it's been dealt with the same all season.

Just as slamming people's heads into the ground, or spearing a player into the ground head first has always warranted a punishment.

A 'Man on man confrontation' is different to a cheap shot by Cunningham.
IMHO.

: Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:21 am  

Saints Fan,

It is not a hang up on Cunningham, it is about a system that is simply not working, when there is not consistency on rulings and judgements, No one says that Clubb was not in the wrong, but to compare the ruling on Cunningham's offence, then Clubb should also have been ruled the same. All we are saying is the Three Wise Men got it wrong with Cunningham and he should have received in my opinion 3 matches.

: Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:33 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

What is this hang up people have with Cunningham at present? Are you all bored with Pryce or something? Sheesh. The green eyed monster does indeed exist!

It wasn't deemed to be accidental. Read the ruling. It was deemed to be reckless, but the RFL gave Cunningham benefit of the doubt when it came to hitting the eye socket (WHICH WAS NOT FRACTURED - STOSIC PLAYED LAST WEEKEND). In other words, the RFL simply opted to believe that Cunningham did not intend to hit Stosic's eye socket. That was the only way in which the RFL let Cunningham off. Without intent, there was no ban. However, because he now has a formal caution, if he misbehaves again while the caution is live, he will get a ban.

I'm sure that would make all you executioners very happy.

Cunningham seems to get a lot of benefit of the doubt decisions doesn't he? He must just be one of those lucky people.

: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:37 am  

Big Graeme wrote:

There are at least two very qualified ex officials on that panel mate.

Problem is that the panel's qualifications or otherwise don't appear to address the clear inconsistency in the way the disciplinary system operates. It's nothing new, there are two issues, one is the inconsistency of how similar offences are punished, the other is how some offences don't even get to that stage.

We need a much more open system of citation and graded punishments, with explanations not just for why some offences attract punishment, but for why the same/similar offences don't attract punishment. If a cheap shot punch isn't worth a ban then so be it, that's the precedent, if a headslam is worth 2 games then so be it, that's the precedent.

If the disciplinary system was forced to explain why they don't even consider some things, or are inconsistently lenient/harsh then I strongly suspect that inconsistency will start to fade out.

: Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:00 am  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

Problem is that the panel's qualifications or otherwise don't appear to address the clear inconsistency in the way the disciplinary system operates.

Never siad they did mate, GF called there qualifications into question, I understand these panels are made of two ex-officials who have served the game in a senior capacity and a barrister.

As for consistency, I'm with you there.

: Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:23 pm  

On the subject of quins appearing to get a raw deal from the panel, I do think it's in part due to the fact Brian Mac & the player(s) concerned only seem to make their representations by telephone. I didn't hear whether or not Clubby went up before the panel in person this time.

With other clubs being closer it is far easier for them to appear before the panel in person and I think (rightly or wrongly) it does make a difference. Particularly when determining "intent".

If Brian Mac was a better orator & made the effort to present his case in person, then I wonder if we would start to see some of the apparent bias dissipate?

In general though, the disciplinary panel is a joke - I don't buy the club/player bias comments but the decisions do definately depend on which side of the bed they get out of/which way the wind is blowing etc etc etc.

: Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:24 pm  

tim791 wrote:

A 'Man on man confrontation' is different to a cheap shot by Cunningham.
IMHO.

He was trying to make space to play the ball as the Wakey player was lying on as they had been doing all night, there was nothing in it, and both Kear and Potter have agreed with that, 2 highly qualified coaches who have both played the game to decent levels also. It was split second thing, no malice whatsoever and KC has a great disciplinary record. Agreed, you shouldn't strike out in a tackle but he is not the only player to have got off without a ban this season for it, look at Lee Smith earlier this season and also Tomkins. Stosic was fine to play the next week.

: Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:44 pm  

Legless wrote:

KC has a great disciplinary record.

Beg too differ.....5 times this season he has been up for review of an incident...in 5 different games. In 22 games, that's a 22% hit rate. He may well be found not guilty all the time, but there's no smoke without fire. The first two this season were for the same offence.....but no charge. The last 2 were for high tackles on players, both taller (considerably taller in Tamata's case)...again no charge and the one in the middle for a deliberate attempt to strike the face but not the eye....WTF
Sorry.....but once your bubble burst and you're no longer one of the elite clubs you will see exactly how myopic the Disciplinary procedures are. Either KC is very clumsy and therefore not as good as you all make out, or he's a dirty player.....either way, makes no difference as he plays for Saints and is therefore considered untouchable