Re: Bateman : Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:54 am  

The MRP shouldnt be made up of ex player dinosaurs who havent played or coached the game in 20 years for a start. It should be an independent panel of people with legal experience who know what the grades mean for an incident and can apply those rules correctly with no wiggle room.

Re: Bateman : Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:58 am  

Father Ted wrote:

The people who made this decision are part time/amateur. Simply not good enough.
Time that those responsible for bringing the game into disrepute are named and shamed.

Danny Sculthorpe and Wilf George on the panel.

Re: Bateman : Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:12 pm  

The appeal looks perfectly reasonable when you look at the minutes, what the original MRP say about the force in the tackle has been contradicted by the ban being upheld. https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/Appeal%20Minutes.pdf

The appeal looks perfectly reasonable when you look at the minutes, what the original MRP say about the force in the tackle has been contradicted by the ban being upheld. https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/Appeal%20Minutes.pdf

Re: Bateman : Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:30 pm  

So they admit that the arm was "at the end of its natural range of movement", but also insist that because it didn't go beyond that, that there was no "unnacceptable risk".

By that logic, ANY foul that doesn't result in an injury (which this would if there had been ANY additional movement) should receive no ban.

Absolute garbage.

Re: Bateman : Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:23 pm  

Biggest load of crap I've ever read.

Do they actually understand the concept of risk? Risk is not a result, it's a possibility. How can "being at the limit of it's natural movement" not be a risk? The "risk" is that any further movement would have resulted in injury.

Totally pathetic.

Re: Bateman : Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:43 am  

Just because he didn't dislocate his arm doesn't make it ok

Is when someone gets spear tackled and is able to walk afterwards doesn't make it ok.

Re: Bateman : Sun Sep 25, 2022 8:39 pm  

SFW wrote:

Agree with the majority of this although not completely with the carry through of bans. To paraphrase Steve Mascord yesterday, you can't have an incident like Ben Flower on Hohaia and then have him play for Wales a couple of weeks later. That's not to say I think trivial Grade A/B charges should carry over aswell but where do you draw the line?

Flowers ban was for a period of time rather than a number of matches. Bans for more serious offences are handed out that way so internationals within the banned timeframe would count.

Re: Bateman : Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:38 am  

i was listening to the GF on talksport with Paul Cooke and Craig Murdoch. i think it was Cooke who said he had been asked to be on the disciplinary panel, obviously he declined. he said he doesnt agree with the current laws and thus would be adjudicating against something he doesnt agree with. Made a couple of comments in the time i had it on, that this tackle / that tackle would have been fine when we played, so i cant agree with the current laws / rules re some of the tackles

Re: Bateman : Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:21 am  

The pieman wrote:

i was listening to the GF on talksport with Paul Cooke and Craig Murdoch. i think it was Cooke who said he had been asked to be on the disciplinary panel, obviously he declined. he said he doesnt agree with the current laws and thus would be adjudicating against something he doesnt agree with. Made a couple of comments in the time i had it on, that this tackle / that tackle would have been fine when we played, so i cant agree with the current laws / rules re some of the tackles

And this I’d suspect is a big problem. The disciplinary procedure might be in a right old mess, but moving ahead it’s not going to be helped if that sort of viewpoint has sizeable sentiment and has an input on decision making as it will just tie it all in knots and lead to a lottery of outcomes.

As I said in my introductory post the other day, I follow both League and Union and the exact same arguments are had currently in both games. The officiating and what now gets penalised. What you can and can’t do. Wailing that the games gone soft. Opposing camps on how many games a player should be playing. Etc etc etc. I see plenty of people argue that incidents where swinging arms that hit the head should be fine, or like last week plenty of comments about Bateman’s red and whether it should have been, and just shake my head.

Some of the officiating might be over-zealous and getting things wrong and needs to improve. I fully accept that there are a lot of moving parts involved and sometimes accidents/incidents happen and you can’t and don’t want to eliminate all of the competition and ability to tackle. But, more often that not, a bigger problem is those involved being unwilling to adapt. Players have to learn to stop bloody clouting people in the head. The height of the tackle and the collision is coming down, whether people like it or not. That might lead to “softer” defence and more metres and more tries etc. and less of smashing into each other and what a lot of people think Rugby is built on. But we’re all on a path now.

With the knowledge and awareness and spotlight on concussion and welfare, and the potential ramifications both legal and health (brain injury, dementia, MND, etc), the direction of travel is only going to go one way and it is inevitable. Both codes of the sport and those involved in it – players, coaches, media, fans - need to wise up. Otherwise I do fear for Rugby as an entity in the future.

Re: Bateman : Wed Sep 28, 2022 12:25 am  

Yes, well said.