Senior kicked out. He didn't get away with it he was correctly penalised by referee Bentham (Richards missed the resultant penalty attempt at goal IIRC), he was charged with a Grade A offence, summoned to appear before the disciplinary, came away with a punishment that fell within the range for a Grade A offence.

I haven't seen it yet but didn't McGoldrick get penalised today at Wigan for a similar offence?

None of the above is in dispute. What is in dispute is:

1) As one of the worst cases of kicking out seen, how much further do you have to go to get the maximum 1 match ban under the current classification?

2) As 3 other less serious offences were awarded bans that weekend, why wasn't Senior also banned?

3) Should the Grade A classification be changed, or indeed a new assignment made for "Kicking out with connection to the head or face" with a higher grade offence given the high potential for injury compared to high tackles / chicken wing tackles / grapple tackles / spear tackles?

Question 1 is yet to be answered by anyone. Question 2, well, obviously there's the current classification, but in direct comparison to say leading with the elbow, the classification is clearly wrong. Which leads to question 3. To which the answer has to be "Yes".

What we're seeing here is that you can deliberately kick a player in the head (in the tackle) and only receive a one match ban, even if you kill him. However, throw him onto his back (unlikely to cause injury, although there is potential) and you may get... well... several matches. Or even months.

That's inconsistent, pure and simple.

1) worst case is your opinon, there is no way that accidental contact can be worse than deliberate, it can cause greater injury but that is not a relevent argument for reasons pointed out previously, the answer is simple, look at the records and show me a case that led to a ban, that is what you need to do (if there are none then we havnt seen the level yet) - remember the incident itself is not the only consideration and only the RFL can answer the question

2) less serious is your opinion again, you should learn to use facts, it's much easier

3) you again wish to grade offences on the basis of injury and not severity of offence or intent which is just plain wrong

deliberately kicking someone in the head is not kicking out, that is different - it has already been established that this was not deliberate - high potential for injury, how many incidents of injury can you point me to other than this one incident? are you describing the spear tackle at the end of the paragraph, if so you are a fool

Not for the first time ...... I agree with Nick ..... I mean Hopie.

Hark at Mr Mature with the avatar of a 5 year old!

You're a one eyed hypocrite, simple as.

Or, more accurately a very emotional one eyed hypocrite whose confused drivel on this subjects goes round in circles.

1) Take a look at your avtar. For a grown man to produce that is truly pitiful.

2) You insist on claiming Senior's kick was deliberate, ignoring the findings of the disciplinary panel that found that it was not. Are you a mind reader perchance?

3) You claim you conveniently missed the events when Wigan players were charged with the same offence (and in one case was found to have kicked out at the player deliberately - unlike Senior - and in the other the panel were unsure of intent). Funny that. Conveniently missed your own players commiting the offence and being charged: hypocrite and liar = zero credibility.

4) Despite your laughable claim to have even missed your own players commiting the offence and being charged you describe Senior's 'offence' to be the worst of its kind. Your like 'Tommy' being called up as a key witness - the deaf and blind Fishta swears he saw and heard everything m'lud.

5)You defend players like Terry Newton yet describe players like Cunningham, Diskin and Bailey as thugs. You sad, sad man

Your jealousy of Leeds and saints is like a cancer eating away at your capacity for rational thought yet alone comment.

6) Senior was charged with an offence for which there is a range of punishments available. The actions of the panel are entirely consistent with their previous actions when 2 Wigan players were charged with the same offence - you know the offences you pretend you didn't know about




Yet you make deluded claims about not being able to have a rational debate. How the chuff do you have a rational debate with a tired, emotional fruitcake?

[urlhttp://viewtopic.php?f=28&t=409593[/url

How many Wigan fans wanted Tomkins banned.

Its only 6 pages long. No wonder Fishta missed both it and the incident.

It's a great thread and proves the point that some have been trying to make which was never about defending Senior.

I would have had no problem with Senior getting banned and I said that before his disciplinary.

Wigan Fans

Senior kicks out = burning an orphanage down

Tomkins kicks out = It was the other guys fault, lets pay his fine for him.

And one poster actually said re Tomkins[i"He didn't kick him hard enough"[/i

Nice find TS! Is that Fishta's credibility I hear sinking?

Glug,[size=85glug[/size,[size=50glug[/size

You cant teach mince.

Quote ="Puig-Aubert"You're a one eyed hypocrite, simple as. Or, more accurately a very emotional one eyed hypocrite whose confused drivel on this subjects goes round in circles. 1) Take a look at your avtar. For a grown man to produce that is truly pitiful.'" Nice change of subject to try and score a point. Quote 2) You insist on claiming Senior's kick was deliberate, ignoring the findings of the disciplinary panel that found that it was not. Are you a mind reader perchance?'" No, I'm simply saying they're wrong. Whilst I agree the [icontact[/i was accidental, the kick wasn't and he shouldn't have done it. If it was accidental then was it a muscular spasm? Quote 3) You claim you conveniently missed the events when Wigan players were charged with the same offence (and in one case was found to have kicked out at the player deliberately - unlike Senior - and in the other the panel were unsure of intent). Funny that. Conveniently missed your own players commiting the offence and being charged: hypocrite and liar = zero credibility.'" I am NOT a liar, nor a hypocrite. As I said, if I could see Tomkins' incident and I feel it should have received a ban, I would say so. Not that it's any of your business, but I do have other commitments in my life, I can't spend every waking hour in front of a TV screen or attend every match, much as I would like to. So why is it so unbelievable that I haven't seen it? If you have a link to a video, then by all means post it and I'll give you my unbiased opinion. I suggest you stop being such an abusive liar yourself. Quote 4) Despite your laughable claim to have even missed your own players commiting the offence and being charged you describe Senior's 'offence' to be the worst of its kind. Your like 'Tommy' being called up as a key witness - the deaf and blind Fishta swears he saw and heard everything m'lud.'" You conveniently omit the words "one of". But don't let facts get in the way of an arguemnt, eh? Quote 5)You defend players like Terry Newton yet describe players like Cunningham, Diskin and Bailey as thugs. You sad, sad man Your jealousy of Leeds and saints is like a cancer eating away at your capacity for rational thought yet alone comment.'" Despite that not making sense, I managed to grasp your "point" there. Please point out where I've defended Newton? I don't believe I passed comment on his disciplinary record, except where I mentioned his ban for injuring Long. Quote 6) Senior was charged with an offence for which there is a range of punishments available. The actions of the panel are entirely consistent with their previous actions when 2 Wigan players were charged with the same offence - you know the offences you pretend you didn't know about '" Yes, that's it, copy pretty much exactly what I said, and try and use it to score another point on me? That makes sense that does. Quote Yet you make deluded claims about not being able to have a rational debate. How the chuff do you have a rational debate with a tired, emotional fruitcake?'" God knows I've tried. But you're clearly too tired and emotional. Incidentally... Why was Senior's kick out only graded as an A? www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=698 ...says it should be a C.... that would suggest there isn't the consistency with previous decisions after all?

Quote ="Puig-Aubert"You're a one eyed hypocrite, simple as. Or, more accurately a very emotional one eyed hypocrite whose confused drivel on this subjects goes round in circles. 1) Take a look at your avtar. For a grown man to produce that is truly pitiful.'" Nice change of subject to try and score a point. Quote 2) You insist on claiming Senior's kick was deliberate, ignoring the findings of the disciplinary panel that found that it was not. Are you a mind reader perchance?'" No, I'm simply saying they're wrong. Whilst I agree the [icontact[/i was accidental, the kick wasn't and he shouldn't have done it. If it was accidental then was it a muscular spasm? Quote 3) You claim you conveniently missed the events when Wigan players were charged with the same offence (and in one case was found to have kicked out at the player deliberately - unlike Senior - and in the other the panel were unsure of intent). Funny that. Conveniently missed your own players commiting the offence and being charged: hypocrite and liar = zero credibility.'" I am NOT a liar, nor a hypocrite. As I said, if I could see Tomkins' incident and I feel it should have received a ban, I would say so. Not that it's any of your business, but I do have other commitments in my life, I can't spend every waking hour in front of a TV screen or attend every match, much as I would like to. So why is it so unbelievable that I haven't seen it? If you have a link to a video, then by all means post it and I'll give you my unbiased opinion. I suggest you stop being such an abusive liar yourself. Quote 4) Despite your laughable claim to have even missed your own players commiting the offence and being charged you describe Senior's 'offence' to be the worst of its kind. Your like 'Tommy' being called up as a key witness - the deaf and blind Fishta swears he saw and heard everything m'lud.'" You conveniently omit the words "one of". But don't let facts get in the way of an arguemnt, eh? Quote 5)You defend players like Terry Newton yet describe players like Cunningham, Diskin and Bailey as thugs. You sad, sad man Your jealousy of Leeds and saints is like a cancer eating away at your capacity for rational thought yet alone comment.'" Despite that not making sense, I managed to grasp your "point" there. Please point out where I've defended Newton? I don't believe I passed comment on his disciplinary record, except where I mentioned his ban for injuring Long. Quote 6) Senior was charged with an offence for which there is a range of punishments available. The actions of the panel are entirely consistent with their previous actions when 2 Wigan players were charged with the same offence - you know the offences you pretend you didn't know about '" Yes, that's it, copy pretty much exactly what I said, and try and use it to score another point on me? That makes sense that does. Quote Yet you make deluded claims about not being able to have a rational debate. How the chuff do you have a rational debate with a tired, emotional fruitcake?'" God knows I've tried. But you're clearly too tired and emotional. Incidentally... Why was Senior's kick out only graded as an A? www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=698 ...says it should be a C.... that would suggest there isn't the consistency with previous decisions after all?

Quote ="Fishsta" www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=698 ...says it should be a C.... that would suggest there isn't the consistency with previous decisions after all?'" As the sanction range for a Grade C offence (re:Lee Smith on Phil Bailey) is stated as No Further Action to a 4 match ban, would it have made a difference to the likely outcome re Mathers, Tomkins S, Senior or McGoldrick? Based on that example (if correct) I would agree that the RFL's disciplinary grading system is far too vague to be of much use.

Quote ="Fishsta" www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=698 ...says it should be a C.... that would suggest there isn't the consistency with previous decisions after all?'" As the sanction range for a Grade C offence (re:Lee Smith on Phil Bailey) is stated as No Further Action to a 4 match ban, would it have made a difference to the likely outcome re Mathers, Tomkins S, Senior or McGoldrick? Based on that example (if correct) I would agree that the RFL's disciplinary grading system is far too vague to be of much use.

I think classifying a kick out (to the face or not) as a grade C makes much more sense. You've still got the NFA option if it really was an unfortunate unavoidable incident (as unlikely as it sounds it is possible), 4 matches for the worst kind of kick out (but is that enough?) and stages inbetween for varying degrees of offence.

It'll be interesting to see how Ryan McGoldrick gets on. IMO it was nowhere near as bad as Seniors.
[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=1985[/url

In what way will it be interesting?

Grade A offence + numerous precedents set should determine the easiest decision (and likely £300) the committee will make this season.

If McGoldrick (I've not seen the incident but are more than happy on this occasion to accept your view) receives a playing ban then that will raise even more issues with the committee.

They'll probably let him play an extra match.



No, evidently.

I'm pointing at you and laughing.

Actually, I might have been wrong about Fishta. I don't think he's a Pie at all, he's a Saints fan. Guaranteed.

Im glad you got your agreement in before I got moderated this time icon_razz.gif

Spot on mate


Seems neither of us can get a simple message across to some. I've given up trying

Thank God for that.

Senior was brought before the disciplinary and was found guilty of an accidental offence and fined accordingly. Sam Tomkins was found guilty of a similar offence which was ruled deliberate and got the same punishment, I think its Leeds fans who should feel wronged.

The hypocrisy of the Goons as shown on the thread making light of the Tomkins incident has been noted.

That's because you don't understand a word of what I've said. Putting aside the juvenile "quote someone and change their words" effort on your part (that 99% of the population of RLFans grew out of when they hit puberty), you still choose to completely ignore what I've written.

I've compared this incident to others that I've seen, not ones I haven't. Why? Because that's the sensible thing to do. Show me a video of Tomkins' kick-out and I'll tell you how that compares. I've read the six-page thread, but there's no video link in there. Until I see it, I can't comment on it.

I HAVE compared it to a similar incident... Lee Smith's effort on Phil Bailey, which the RFL rated:

"Law:15.1(a)/(i) Detail: Kicking out / strike to face. Grade:C"

Keith Senior kicked out resulting in a strike to the face. Grade? A. Now, you tell me how that is consistent with "previous incidents of a similar nature".

I didn't claim to mind-read players, either. That's two more abusive lies by you.



An insult of gargantuan proportions. And typically a sign that you know you've lost this particular argument.

Before you reply, remember this advice.

"It's better to stay silent and be thought of as an idiot... than to say something and remove all doubt".

Unless you have something interesting and vaguely mature to say, I'll leave it at that. I've had my share of fun shooting a whale in a barrel.

For the more rational Leeds fans... Good luck against the Stains in the Semi. However that's as far as my support will go; Warrington or Catalans to lift the cup! (Hopefully)