Quote~ No1 Saints Fan ~="~ No1 Saints Fan ~"1 match ban.'"
They must have run out of warning letters.Shame really as it was more clumsy than malicious.There have been quite a few "tackles" more deserving of a ban than the Burgess one.
I've heard the RFL have developed and are to introduce a network of sensors in every player's shirt, so the disciplinary can decide accurately the amount of pressure exerted, and therefore who to ban and who to write love letters to.
I received a reply from Blake Solly (Compliance Manager, RFL) regarding the Carl Ablett trip and inconsistency with the chicken wing tackles.
Because it's in the interest of the rugby league public I will post it here.
Note: I didn't actually imply there was any favouritism occurring so not sure why this is mentioned in the email.
Quote
.....
......
Thank you for your email.
The Carl Ablett tackle looked like a trip at first instance, but on detailed review it is clear that Ablett’s first contact with Meli is with his left arm, before contact is made between Ablett’s left leg and Meli’s body. The position with tripping is that where a person makes first contact with their hand or shoulder, they are then entitled to use their leg or other part of their body to complete the tackle (like in a Cumberland throw tackle). Whilst Ablett’s attempt to tackle Gardner with his arms was not particularly effective, and it was the collision between his leg and Meli that completed the tackle, it was a legitimate challenge under the Laws of the Game.
Whilst the Senior, Diskin and Fa'asavlu incidents all relate to the same type of tackle technique, the Panel or Tribunal believed there were differences in the degree of pressure or the technique used by the player involved. The Match Review Panel considered the Fa'asavlu incident was worthy of charge, and he was found guilty of an undue pressure tackle. As far as the Diskin incident is concerned, the Match Review Panel thought that it was also serious enough to refer to the Tribunal, but it was the Tribunal that deemed him Not Guilty. The Match Review Panel did not believe the Senior tackle was as bad as the Diskin or Fa'asvalu tackle, and on that basis thought a warning letter was sufficient.
The Match Review Panel and Operational Rules Tribunal are completely independent, and no club is above the rules or receives preferential treatment. You may consider there is an element of inconsistency in the operation of the disciplinary system, however the Match Review Panel and Tribunal are asked to judge each case on its merits, and there will always be differing opinions on whether a player has a case to answer for misconduct, whether the misconduct is worthy of referral to a Tribunal, and whether the Tribunal considers the offence constitutes misconduct. The assessment of misconduct involves the Panel and Tribunal forming an opinion and exercising judgement. You may disagree with the opinion and judgment formed by the Panel/Tribunal, but rest assured there is no favouritism toward any club. Indeed all 14 clubs usually say to me that their club is being harshly treated, which would seem to indicate that the Panel and Tribunal are acting without any favouritism.
I received a reply from Blake Solly (Compliance Manager, RFL) regarding the Carl Ablett trip and inconsistency with the chicken wing tackles.
Because it's in the interest of the rugby league public I will post it here.
Note: I didn't actually imply there was any favouritism occurring so not sure why this is mentioned in the email.
Quote
.....
......
Thank you for your email.
The Carl Ablett tackle looked like a trip at first instance, but on detailed review it is clear that Ablett’s first contact with Meli is with his left arm, before contact is made between Ablett’s left leg and Meli’s body. The position with tripping is that where a person makes first contact with their hand or shoulder, they are then entitled to use their leg or other part of their body to complete the tackle (like in a Cumberland throw tackle). Whilst Ablett’s attempt to tackle Gardner with his arms was not particularly effective, and it was the collision between his leg and Meli that completed the tackle, it was a legitimate challenge under the Laws of the Game.
Whilst the Senior, Diskin and Fa'asavlu incidents all relate to the same type of tackle technique, the Panel or Tribunal believed there were differences in the degree of pressure or the technique used by the player involved. The Match Review Panel considered the Fa'asavlu incident was worthy of charge, and he was found guilty of an undue pressure tackle. As far as the Diskin incident is concerned, the Match Review Panel thought that it was also serious enough to refer to the Tribunal, but it was the Tribunal that deemed him Not Guilty. The Match Review Panel did not believe the Senior tackle was as bad as the Diskin or Fa'asvalu tackle, and on that basis thought a warning letter was sufficient.
The Match Review Panel and Operational Rules Tribunal are completely independent, and no club is above the rules or receives preferential treatment. You may consider there is an element of inconsistency in the operation of the disciplinary system, however the Match Review Panel and Tribunal are asked to judge each case on its merits, and there will always be differing opinions on whether a player has a case to answer for misconduct, whether the misconduct is worthy of referral to a Tribunal, and whether the Tribunal considers the offence constitutes misconduct. The assessment of misconduct involves the Panel and Tribunal forming an opinion and exercising judgement. You may disagree with the opinion and judgment formed by the Panel/Tribunal, but rest assured there is no favouritism toward any club. Indeed all 14 clubs usually say to me that their club is being harshly treated, which would seem to indicate that the Panel and Tribunal are acting without any favouritism.
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
