Re: Saints (a) : Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:30 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

Funny we're not seeing comments of outrage from opposition fans and journos across all social media platforms for Byrnes ban. I've hardly heard a whimper about it and watching the forty 20 podcast, they said the grading seemed fair! Flip that around to the dozens of comments I saw on Harry Smith's challenge on opening night, how harshly treated Liam Watts was, how Ellis should've been banned etc and it's as though people are prepared to accept the crackdown as long as it's on the right clubs.

Honestly I'm shocked

This is one of the problems with the sport. Most fans couldn’t give a monkeys and actively revel in dogshit decisions when it goes against other clubs. I get that it’s funny etc but this has to be one of those things that we all come together on and agree is a pile of crap that needs sorting. You might laugh at Knowles being banned for 5 games this week, but you won’t be laughing when Maguire gets 12 games for gobbing off at someone etc etc. As funny as it can be to see oppo fans moaning about a decision, it’s always gonna come back and bite you too. 100% of the time

Re: Saints (a) : Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:32 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

It definitely isn't intended as points scoring. I respect FTV's opinion even when I disagree with it so I take his assessment on board but counter it with my own different view and I think a "similar" verdict isn't unreasonable. Saints fans can also point to comparable incidents that they've come out on the wrong end of too, although I draw the line at the conspiracy nonsense some of them have taken to.

The point of my post was the sheer inconsistency of the disciplinary. It's ludicrous that they can arrive at such wildly different sanctions for what amounts to very similar incidents. I get that no two incidents are exactly alike but twice as bad?!?! Utter nonsense..

Yeah, no points scoring intended at all on my part either. As I said above plenty of fans are happy to accept harsh punishments for players of certain clubs and not for others and that needs to stop. I had a look on the Total RL forum earlier and it was exactly that, with most of the talk being about how disgraceful it is that Dupree didn't get a ban for hitting Lees in the face....only he didn't hit him in the face but that is ignored. The same people who didn't agree with the Watts ban are fine with this one for Byrne and so on.

I'm no fan of Leeds but Lisone was hit with a 3 game ban earlier in the season that was an absolute disgrace, the Smith one the other day was shameful (and was rightfully over turned) and so on. I don't care what shirt any player is in, I just want to see consistency and common sense. Nobody could make Byrne getting 4 games and Percival 2 make sense to me because it just doesn't. I didn't want Percival to miss more games, it seemed fair enough under the current crack down you cannot then give Byrne more than 2.

Re: Saints (a) : Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:37 pm  

I thought it was a red but concede 4 seems a little out of kilter compared to what has gone before. 2 maybe more consistent.... but consistency isn't something we get from the disciplinary panel.

Re: Saints (a) : Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:43 pm  

Div wrote:

I thought it was a red but concede 4 seems a little out of kilter compared to what has gone before. 2 maybe more consistent.... but consistency isn't something we get from the disciplinary panel.

Is about what it should've been going off previous incidents IMO. I also do not have an issue with the red because that has been reasonably consistent, as long as the video ref gets enough time to intervene, which is usually via a player staying down (sometimes because they're genuinely hurt but not always. There is clearly no issue with that in this case). I just cannot go with 4 games and the big fine on top.

Re: Saints (a) : Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:57 pm  

I still can't believe people thought it was a red card. A ref card FFS, on Good Friday in the biggest game of the regular season. A red card for that.

Half the build-up was talking about going to war, ripping in and the infamous GF fight. You know, the one that's the highest viewed piece of SL content on YouTube.

Re: Saints (a) : Wed Apr 03, 2024 1:49 pm  

sergeant pepper wrote:

I still can't believe people thought it was a red card. A ref card FFS, on Good Friday in the biggest game of the regular season. A red card for that.

Half the build-up was talking about going to war, ripping in and the infamous GF fight. You know, the one that's the highest viewed piece of SL content on YouTube.

There is a big difference between living with a red card 'in the current climate' and thinking it's a red card. All being well, without ambulance chasers all over the sport, there's no way I think it's a red card but I can put up with it being one. What I can't put up with is then a guy being hit with a long ban and a big fine. The players are being battered in 3 different ways (on game day, then by being sat down and then being hit in the pocket) and the clubs, fans and the game is then missing out on seeing games between full strength teams.

Re: Saints (a) : Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:05 pm  

The comparison with Percival is obviously a relevant one given the two red cards.

This may be red-vee tinted specs but when I look at the Percival one, he gets into a very similar position to Byrne (i.e. he's not side on looking to smash with the shoulder, he's pretty front on with right arm low and out to his side). So I don't think either are looking to deliberately lead with the shoulder for starters.

I think he sees the ball going down and almost tries to pull out of the tackle rather than completing it, with the Salford player running into him and Percival ending up bumping backwards. I guess the MRP have considered that Byrne was fully committed to an illegal tackle whilst Percival could argue he tried to pull out of a tackle after a player dropped the ball - i.e. less deliberate force in the action?

Just my take and admit it could be absolute bobbins, but that's what I see when I slow the Percy tackle down.

Either way, I think we can all probably agree that the Byrne tackle is not what 4-match bans are for.

Re: Saints (a) : Wed Apr 03, 2024 4:11 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

The comparison with Percival is obviously a relevant one given the two red cards.

This may be red-vee tinted specs but when I look at the Percival one, he gets into a very similar position to Byrne (i.e. he's not side on looking to smash with the shoulder, he's pretty front on with right arm low and out to his side). So I don't think either are looking to deliberately lead with the shoulder for starters.

I think he sees the ball going down and almost tries to pull out of the tackle rather than completing it, with the Salford player running into him and Percival ending up bumping backwards. I guess the MRP have considered that Byrne was fully committed to an illegal tackle whilst Percival could argue he tried to pull out of a tackle after a player dropped the ball - i.e. less deliberate force in the action?

Just my take and admit it could be absolute bobbins, but that's what I see when I slow the Percy tackle down.

Either way, I think we can all probably agree that the Byrne tackle is not what 4-match bans are for.

As I said earlier mate, we all see incidents in different ways. I think the comparison with the Percival one is relevant, though, because it shows the levels of inconsistency or even incompetence. Even from your perspective (which is not as harsh as mine) there still isn't enough difference between the two to justify Byrne's being twice as bad. A revealing way to illustrate it is, according to the the disciplinary, Percy could have received 2 red cards for similar offences in that match and still only been as bad as Byrne's!

I know that's a bit of a convoluted way of looking at it but it really does show the ridiculous disparity.

Re: Saints (a) : Wed Apr 03, 2024 9:25 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

The comparison with Percival is obviously a relevant one given the two red cards.

This may be red-vee tinted specs but when I look at the Percival one, he gets into a very similar position to Byrne (i.e. he's not side on looking to smash with the shoulder, he's pretty front on with right arm low and out to his side). So I don't think either are looking to deliberately lead with the shoulder for starters.

I think he sees the ball going down and almost tries to pull out of the tackle rather than completing it, with the Salford player running into him and Percival ending up bumping backwards. I guess the MRP have considered that Byrne was fully committed to an illegal tackle whilst Percival could argue he tried to pull out of a tackle after a player dropped the ball - i.e. less deliberate force in the action?

Just my take and admit it could be absolute bobbins, but that's what I see when I slow the Percy tackle down.

Either way, I think we can all probably agree that the Byrne tackle is not what 4-match bans are for.

You are assuming the MRP has a brain between them, that’s where your argument falls On a serious note, I understand your view. Sadly, such infringements should be determined on pov but simply on what has happened, either two or four matches for them both.

Re: Saints (a) : Wed Apr 03, 2024 11:12 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

The comparison with Percival is obviously a relevant one given the two red cards.

This may be red-vee tinted specs but when I look at the Percival one, he gets into a very similar position to Byrne (i.e. he's not side on looking to smash with the shoulder, he's pretty front on with right arm low and out to his side). So I don't think either are looking to deliberately lead with the shoulder for starters.

I think he sees the ball going down and almost tries to pull out of the tackle rather than completing it, with the Salford player running into him and Percival ending up bumping backwards. I guess the MRP have considered that Byrne was fully committed to an illegal tackle whilst Percival could argue he tried to pull out of a tackle after a player dropped the ball - i.e. less deliberate force in the action?

Just my take and admit it could be absolute bobbins, but that's what I see when I slow the Percy tackle down.

Either way, I think we can all probably agree that the Byrne tackle is not what 4-match bans are for.

Sat with my RedVee mate watching the Salford game, at the time I said something similar about the Percival tackle. But like NK says, a 4 match ban AND a £750 fine (when the base figure is £250), stretches credibility to the limit.