Was on Whitehaven forum yesterday and they are going CRAZY

.Saying when Leigh scored to go 8-12 up they had 14 men on the pitch and the officals missed it.RFL going to look at match report,do you think anything will be done about this?

No, unless they can prove it. I'm not saying it didn't happen but you can't reverse a result just because someone's kicked up a stink.

the rfl are investigating yesterdays match due to to haven lodging official complaint. so it says on the leigh board viewtopic.php?f=22&t=457752 allso here www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... Leigh.html

the rfl are investigating yesterdays match due to to haven lodging official complaint. so it says on the leigh board viewtopic.php?f=22&t=457752 allso here www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... Leigh.html

Be assured that the RFL's main objective will be to cover its own backside.

Just for your information the allegation has as much chance of suceeding as me winning the lottery and I never buy a ticket.

I was there and at no time when the ball was in play did Leigh have 14 players involved. The DVD is clear on this. The appeal is a complete waste of time for whoever has to look at it and throw it out. It is as pathetic as it is frivolous and the Haven coach should be ashamed of himself.

Frivolous is a little strong. After all, he was an ineligible player on the field at that time. Due to not reporting properly to the fourth official. However I don't expect anything to come from it except a fine and possible suspension for Duffy.


Before anyone says he wasn't ineligible, it means under the rules he wasn't eligible. In order to be eligible he had to report to the fourth official and then wait to be allowed on. Therefore he's ineligible.

Were you there Billy, you make your final statement as though you were

Quote ="DemonUK"Were you there Billy, you make your final statement as though you were'" Was he not sent off for entering the field without permission???? Therefore ineligible! Not sure why I'd need to be there to say it isn't frivolous. After all frivolous means: =#FF00001. not serious or sensible in content, attitude, or behaviour; silly a frivolous remark 2. unworthy of serious or sensible treatment; unimportant frivolous details All the paper reports suggest he was sent off for this. Here's a report from your own local rag: Quote Cue controversy, which seems to follow referee Craig Halloran around. As Nanyn hit the conversion, Halloran took a report from the fourth official charged with looking after the conduct and substitutions of both benches. He was then approached by the match commisioner with Duffy's substitution on their lips. The Leigh hooker was brought before the referee and promptly red carded, however Leigh were allowed to put Dave McConnell back onto the field and after he checked with the referee, he gave a thumbs-up sign to the bench while Duffy incredulously made his way to the dressing rooms. '" www.leighjournal.co.uk/sport/lei ... ue_double/ Just in case that one isn't enough here's another match report Quote The fourth official and match commissioner alerted game referee Craig Halloran to the fact that Duffy’s previous substitution should not have counted and he promptly showed the red card to the hooker and then allowed Dave McConnell to re-enter play. '" www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/bo ... urions_12/ Therefore, it isn't =#FF0000frivolous to complain about a possible act of misconduct. Whether they expect anything is another matter.

Quote ="DemonUK"Were you there Billy, you make your final statement as though you were'" Was he not sent off for entering the field without permission???? Therefore ineligible! Not sure why I'd need to be there to say it isn't frivolous. After all frivolous means: =#FF00001. not serious or sensible in content, attitude, or behaviour; silly a frivolous remark 2. unworthy of serious or sensible treatment; unimportant frivolous details All the paper reports suggest he was sent off for this. Here's a report from your own local rag: Quote Cue controversy, which seems to follow referee Craig Halloran around. As Nanyn hit the conversion, Halloran took a report from the fourth official charged with looking after the conduct and substitutions of both benches. He was then approached by the match commisioner with Duffy's substitution on their lips. The Leigh hooker was brought before the referee and promptly red carded, however Leigh were allowed to put Dave McConnell back onto the field and after he checked with the referee, he gave a thumbs-up sign to the bench while Duffy incredulously made his way to the dressing rooms. '" www.leighjournal.co.uk/sport/lei ... ue_double/ Just in case that one isn't enough here's another match report Quote The fourth official and match commissioner alerted game referee Craig Halloran to the fact that Duffy’s previous substitution should not have counted and he promptly showed the red card to the hooker and then allowed Dave McConnell to re-enter play. '" www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/bo ... urions_12/ Therefore, it isn't =#FF0000frivolous to complain about a possible act of misconduct. Whether they expect anything is another matter.

Yes but was it illegal, or did something else happen. I agree thats what the referees or MCs report will say or does say. The question remains how did it happen. With the number of Haven people (coaches, subs, water carriers) stood almost right on the touchline there was very little room to move and there was only one official covering both benches (should be one for each bench I think). Also cry baby stokes was on at him all the time apparently, 4th official was being harrassed for alot of the game apparently.

The RFL will make whatever decsion they make, but on the 14 men claim there is no case to answer.

This permission for a sub to replace a player surely is in place so that the number of times relating to substitutions is adhered to. Stokes knows it was and so do all the officials. That is why it is frivolous.

So if it was adhered to, why do you think he was sent off or are you saying that the officials just thought, oh sod it we'll send him off instead!!! Come on do you really believe that???

This is a quote from a Haven fan who I know that was at the game on Sunday.

"Yep that's right, they brought duffy on illegally and he was involved in the play that got them the try. The try should be disallowed which would mean a win for us! The ref sent duffy off, they still had 13 men on the pitch and he was then subbed on! :/ makes ok sense that sums up how well the ref played, didn't have a clue"

But the Haven fan is wrong about 14 men and the DVD shows it.

Re Billy's comment actually I do otherwise what is he for ?

It is frivolous and this pathetic reaction from the Haven club is just as daft as when they last made a complaint about my club when they suggested a Leigh fan assaulted a Whitehaven fan at Hilton Park with a baseball bat.

Re the red card I think that is a red herring otherwise why did the ref allow the player who had been substituted to return to the field of play ? I suppose you would have to ask the ref about that.

Facts are facts. Leigh won and that is that.

When you lot were giving us a good hiding you were still moaning about the ref. It's bred in to you over there!

TBH: not our problem.

It's Whitehaven's and Leigh's. Oh, and the RFL.

It is our problem. It affects everyone - we're all part of the Rugby League family. Someone please - think of the children.

TBH i feel that fax fans are only truely interested in this in the hope that Leigh are deducted points to keep us near to them, otherwise we wouldnt really give a stuff. Its not the fault of either club, its down to poor officials and Duffy not following the correct procedure for interchanges. We just need to focus on getting a win there next week!

This has been an accident waiting to happen for some club for a while now.

We only just got away with earlier this season when the fourth official went on to say that we had 14 players on the field - this was when we put Penky on for Glees and the former sprinted on whilst the latter dawdled off looking over his shoulder as play continued.

By the time they counted up Glees was in the dugout with a top on.

Some subs - Dave Larder is a classic example - can't wait and want to jump off the bench and straight on but you have to go through the fourth official. And if a player is injured there is massive pressure from the coaching staff to get a replacement onto the pitch.

One problem that the RFL need to look at though is the fact that sometimes there is one bloke for both times...and if he's busy doing something else it can get frustrating.

Similar thing happened a few years ago at St. Helens, Cunningham didnt leave the pitch fast enough whilst been replaced, substitute came on... Saints scored, don't think Saints got any punishment as Cunningham was deemed to not be involved in the Try. Or, more likely being it was the RFL dealing with the matter, because they're St Helens...

Only one punishment for being deemed as "cheating." Expulsion from the competition!! Sure that happened somewhere recently

Batley should be installed as championship leaders and Swinton promoted to the Championship. Fax promoted to take the place of the Druids in Sooperleeg.
Unfortunately Carlsberg don't run the RFL..........but if they did?

We would all have to drink awfull Danish Larger at matches

XXXX

not sure if they had 14 men on or not.
But john duffy was red carded after they scored the match winning try for illegally entering the field of play.He didn't go on via the 4th offical and didn't hand in his subs card.This only came to light after the conversion, when just before the restart the match comisioner came to the touchline to inform the ref

problem is he provided the pass for the try and then once sent off , they were allowed to bring Mconnell back on meaning they stil had 13 men for the remaining 20 mins

make any sense out of that lot if you can cause god knows what's going to happen

But would it be £3 a pint?

It has yet to be proven that he did enter the field of play illegally. The suggestion is, that he handed the card to the 4th official, who dropped it. Duffy was then instructed to go back to the 4th official, which he did and then returned to the fray - joining his 12 teammates, as McConnell had left the pitch.

I do have sympathy with the 4th official, who was surrounded by over 20 other people on the touchline. Amazingly each team can have up to 13 people in that 'technical area' but they all have to sit down! As if!)

In two recent games at LSV there have been similar, 'unusual' incidents. Against Sheffield we had a player red-carded and played with 12 men for about 50 minutes. Late in the second half the MC counted the Leigh players and went down to the 'bench', where he appeared to be trying to persuade the Leigh staff to put on a 13th player - who hovered between the pitch and the bench, until staff pointed out to the MC that we had the correct number of players on the field.

Then against Featherstone, their sub who was waiting to enter the pitch, was yellow carded - presumably for being about a foot inside the playing area. They too were allowed to retain 13 men on the pitch.

I guess all this will get sorted, but it just may be that the 4th official or MC were at fault. Meanwhile, something should be done to control the staff in the 'technical area' (of both teams) and provide two 'interchange officials' at every game. (there was only one at Whitehaven - due to no fault of the home club)

By not being sure meaning you might have seen the DVD but do not want to admit it. You and I and everone else who was at the game knows this is an absolutely pathetic attempt to complain against playing a game against a team with the same number of players which Haven lost in the hope another lunatic at RL HQ agrees with your blinkered hope.

I am beginning to think some Haven fans think the world is flat.That some backward Ayatollah or someone equally as daft might take this appeal seriously just to show the world that the Supreme being lives a few miles South of Workington.