I see yer point sal but that falls soley at Chase's feet imo he's their "Marquee" and highest paid player so he should have to face some of the financial burden.
It's not the RFL's responsabillity imo to wory about any kind of £££££ implications for the club if their player is banned.

It may not be their job to worry about it, but it could be in the back of their mind. After all, surely the RFL can only afford to prop up a certain number of clubs

I don't think its wrong, but it should only have a bearing on it. To a certain extend then length of absence is down to a certain amount of luck.

Using the recent spear tackle by L'Estrange. In theory, that could have ended Peacock's career, had he have been very unlucky.

In the real world example, I don't think it makes that much difference in a like for like situation. If you hit someone once, and it just happens to be a cracker I'm not certain you'd get a harsher sentence than if you hit someone with a normal punch. Where there is extra punishment and usually extra damage is where multiple blows are struck, which I don't think is comparable in this case

Cas shouldn't be a 'one man team' then

All clubs have marque players - could you see the RFL banning Sam Tomkins for 8 weeks or Kevin Sinfield or James Roby?

If they deserve it yes

Tad - you don't get much more blatant than Chase on Saturday so what would you have to do to get 8 matches and no matter what Tomkins did he would never get 8 matches, he is the biggest draw in the sport.

That should make him more accountable for his actions then. He should be under even greater scrutiny to make sure he doesn't get anything that wrong.

All pigs are equal mate, some more equal than others.

Also Playing devil's advocate here Sal
Would the RFL has also take into account the welfare of the Catleford Tigers clubs finances if Rangi made that self same challenge on one of SL's so called marque players?
Lets say for arguments sake that this serious injury was sustained by Sam and also in a game that Cas needed to win to make the play offs a reality and thus secure their financial future

I know which side of the fence they would be sitting on then!

Shoot them all and let the Rugby Gods sort them out.

thats on youtube 'Leeds 26 vs Widnes 12 (1989) 1/2' the challenge on offiah by gibson in the 2nd part isn't very clever either

By the fact the game was concluded and Cas would either be in the play offs or not the punishment would not affect Cas' future. I suspect if that challenge had of been on Tomkins Chase would have got more than 3 games.

Yes

If a player lets his side down he has to be punished. If we have a "boys club" in terms of who gets away with what then the game really will go down the toilet

Forgot how bad that was - the ref (Holdsworth??) got a bit of shoving of his own going on - you wouldn't see Ganson risking his good looks by getting in the middle like that today.

I agree that if a players career is ended by the tackle then no, the offending player should not be banned for life, at least not automatically. If the offense is stupidly aggressive and pre-meditated though why not? If you deliberatly end someones career why should you be allowed to play again? Do we really want these people in our sport? Say for instance that Issac Luke had broken Chases leg and that meant Chase couldnt play again. Surely its fair to stop Luke playing as he did it on purpose. It was OTT and deliberate.

As for if a player isnt injured then clearly there should still be a penalty. I would hope that the penalty would fit the crime in these instances. If, for example, Chase's tackle had just given Ropati a little tooth ache then you could argue three matches was sufficient.

We should go to an eye for an eye system, where if your badly injured by serious foul play, then you get 1 free shot at someone, and its televised on boots and all.

I don’t think that damage done should really be used when deciding the punishment for the offending player, the damage a player suffers is more luck than judgement. Look at the injury Paul Deacon suffered in the tri-nations a few years ago. 99 times out of 100 that tackle doesn’t result in an injury, that time it resulted in a life-threatening facial injury.

Would it be fair to have seen a severe ban handed out to Joe Vagana for that high tackle when there will be 99 which are exactly the same which result in no injury (and as such no/a low ban)

Or take striking, is it really fair that a player who swings, connects, and knocks the other out is punished more harshly than a player who swings, and just catches a player? That almost seems a reward for the second player being a bit rubbish at fighting.

It would have been totally unfair to ban Big Joe, as it was of course Nigel Vagana that did it !

What a strange comment. Care to enlighten us?

Don't they do literature in Hull?
I'd have thought most people would have recognised this (mis)quote.

I'm fully aware where the quote comes from. I just don't see the relevance.

dannatt copped a 8 match ban for it

The implication, I would have thought,(unless Tad proves me wrong) is that 'marquee' players are treated differently to the average prole in the game, despite a system which should guarantee fair treatment for all. Seems relevant enough to me.

And for a similar offence, at around the same time, Les Boyd got 15 months in Australia. If Dannatt had received the same ban it would have put the $h!ts up all the **s that made a living hitting better players in the face after the ball had gone.

so easy someone from hull should of got it