So is the one he's made pretty much admitting he did it on purpose, leaving the RFL looking even more stupid.

If you read my post, I didn't say he did. I just said maybe thats how that panel saw it?

It would be pretty hard to see Chase's attack as accidental don't you think?

If he chooses to go on a social networking site then so be it.

It's also hard to justify a 2 game ban and fine for someone with no previous record when other players (Bailey) have a previous and get less.

Well done for totally missing the point.

So do you believe Chase was "accidentally" punching Ah Van in the face then and thus it merits no ban?

for god sake get a grip of reality --- what happend in the tackle to make rangi react in such a way if he was just objecting to being tackled he would be infront of the rfl every week as a key player he takes big hits week in week out . Remember we got the penalty so the touch judge or ref thought that Saintly Jeffries had done something. No one is denying that Rangi retaliated people are annoyed and the inconsistent way in which the disciplinary panel works with one rule for one and one for another.


Quote from bully boxer


And as for racism don't know if you notice but we have people from different ethnic backgrounds playing for us and watching us too and as you seem to be the only person who has mentioned it however if you did hear any racist comment you should have reported straight away to a steward as to ignore it make you as bad as the person making the comment

Raynor had a good record too. So pretty consistent for once by the RFL.

I believe that Bailey, believe it or not, has a pretty decent record too.

But you clearly mentioned the word "accidental" and seeing as you thought that you could "accidentally" tackle someone in their back with your knees I simply wanted to know how this could be done.

I didn't mention racism, so please don't quote my post and drag me into the racism thing. That was someone else.

Were you there? I could have sworn it was Jefferies.

Yes I was there, I thought it was Paddy. But I might be wrong. It was hard to see his face, it was obscured by Rangi's fists...

i quoted bully boxer for the racism part not you, apologies if it came across as you

you've just lost all credability,how on earth can you mistake one for the other,if you didn't go just say,no big deal.

I did go, definately. I was there really early as I thought it was 3.00 kick off. I have no credibilty to lose, so I'm not too worried!
I still think it was Paddy though. Paddy would be the one more inclined to wind someone up in the tackle too. But again, I stand corrected if I am wrong.
I am not sure who he was punching is the issue though.

Thanks a lot! Not quite sure I agree with your logic on that one.

I guess we all have to make a judgement call in those situations. If it had continued throughout the match I may well have had done so. As it was I put it down to a few mindless idiots and something I had pretty much forgotten about until reading the abuse directed towards Diskin. Like I said earlier, I have always had good experiences at your ground before. Hopefully just an isolated incident.

If people chose to ignore a racist comment it means they aren't objecting to it, not calling you a racist just making the point of do not ignore racism

It was definatley Jefferies and its interesting how you failed to see Jefferies elbow to Rangi's face while they were on the floor

Two matches is a joke considering other offences of punching commited thoughout the season



delboy66(aye of the tigers fanzine)

Hi, first time I have been on here for a couple of years or so. I actually went to the game on Sunday. Chase was clearly reacting to a blow to his head whilst on the floor. Do not condone it, but name me anyone who would not react in some way to unexpectedly taking a blow, anywhere, not just on an RL field. The RFL you would think should understand that, and allow for human nature in those circumstances.

There is also a difference between that, and other less punished cases mentioned, such as Coley and Bailey, who ran in throwing a punch or punches for something that neither concerned or had had nothing to do with them. Personally speaking I don't get het up with the RFL or the game nowadays, I have family ill and it's not worth it, there are far more important things. At one time I used to react and write letters but nowadays it's just a shrug of the shoulders. I have stopped going to internationals, Wembley finals and RL functions etc, anything that puts money in their pocket. If many more did that they would soon start thinking, and I don't just mean Cas fans, the likes of Whitehaven, Fev, Oldham, Wakey and many others that are treat with absolute contempt. Some of these clubs hit financial difficulties and got naff all help from the RFL whereas the likes of Quins and Crusaders get bailed out, at considerable cost.

I have no idea whether Cas will get a franchise or not and it will be sad if they don't. However whether Cas or Wakey or whoever, they can console theirselves with the fact that they will be crying out for them back in about 3 years. Take it from me, as good as game as it is on the field, it is dying financially and will continue to do so and in 3 years time it will be in dire straits, and out on it's feet. The defection of the likes of Eastmond is just the start of many, as the increasingly financial muscle of the RFU will see many more follow him.

The RFL has just seen a huge reduction in it's funding from 'Sport England' with the reason being 'a drop in participation figures'. I knew beforehand they were going to get panned, and that's honestly dead straight, but I can assure you it was nothing to do with the reason given. Nor was it any anti RL bias either. A good friend of mine works for Sport England and coming from York he is a big fan of our game. The real reason is that they see the RFL as an unfit governing body and not worthy of any substantial handouts, and that my friends is the sole and simple reason.

I do hope that Cas appeal, but it will be a futile gesture. The RFL have given 2 matches for their own reasons which have been documented on here, and there is not a cat in hells chance it will be reduced. They will just give the usual goblidegook and crappy rhetoric to justify it. No matter how unjust, they are that hard faced and just wash it over and do whatever suits them, irregardless.

2 matches seems excessive for punching imo. Especially as he didn't run in, which is deemed a worse offence.

I don't think anyone has won an appeal this season, I may be wrong.

It would be a shame if he missed the Cup QF.

I think like most people I have no real objection to 2 match bans for punching in retalliation, that seems perfectly logical to me that players do not make their own justice on the field.

I wasn't at the hearing either, so it is not clear what eveidence and arguments were put forward - for instance if the offence was then aggrevated by abusing the referee or match comissioner after the game, then that too could well have a bearing and should.

Again, no objection to any of the above. I think the appeal will be based on the fact that without any additional circumstances, that it is not in keeping with the sanctions of similar events. As someone who has spent a lot of time in various capacities around the sport and someone who, I am not ashamed to admit detests punch ups, I would like to see harsh sanctions, becuase the game is hard enough, tough and played by tough people without allowing punching and brawls..........

BUT - it has to be consistently applied and in this case looking at other recent offences, it has not been. If I was Castleford, I might be tempted to contact the RFL and instead of allowing Rangi to play this week pending appeal, we ask them to allow us to "suspend" Rangi this week pending appeal, showing our intentions we do not condone the activity but contest the sanction.

That way if the ban is reduced to 1 game, he will have served it.

Happy to be told I am wrong, a clown and biased, but my view is equal to those already shared!

Edited. post did not go through.

If you appeal though, it will be heard this week won't it. So he will know before the weekend's game. Personally I think it will be reduced to 1 match on appeal, and that would be fair enough.
But it won't appease everyone, especially the ones who think that punching is fine and just part of the game.

No, I agree it won't.... I can't see the link between fighting and playing rugby league to be honest but some people seem to think it is part and parcel.
What's part and parcel is the physical collision and confrontation and people get hurt, but if I wanted to see a fight I would watch MMA or boxing.

Back on topic, I don't think the appeal would be heard before this weeks game, so I think Rangi would be allowed to play pending appeal. I actually think our seeking agreement to electively suspend Rangi this week would be seen as positive; we would be accepting that the offence occured and issuing a sanction, the appeal is the severity of the sanction. I think it is important we are not being seen (which we are not) to condone the action or get Rangi off, an offense was committed and sanction is mandatory.

appeal hearing at 4pm. check official site for verdict

www.anchorfan.com/blog/disciplin ... -the-chase Good article and the RFL's reasoning is complete and utter bull

www.anchorfan.com/blog/disciplin ... -the-chase Good article and the RFL's reasoning is complete and utter bull