But not as bad an example as that of Bailey's latest Disciplinary Awful moment in losing his cool yet again and getting sent off. Dirty, bad tempered, cheap shot "et al"

At least after he was off we conceded less points than when he was on. "Phew"

Knew you couldn't resist bringing, form prop, TMFMISL into proceedings. You can't help yourself.

Glad you brought this example up actually, you never got round to explaining the negative impact this had on Leeds. Could you do so?

Weren't we 20-0 down when he was sent off? Hmmmm? Do your figures stack up just out of interest?

'losing his cool yet again' - bit of a stretch yet again. He's a prop, a bit of biff happened, man-up dude.

Where was the cheap shot by the way? Are you thinking of Cross on Myler?

Well the two are not dissimilar are they? Big, roughhouse props with limited creative skills and neither likley to win Mastermind. But they both do a job in an simliar way.



As you say with Bailey on the field we were 20-0 down. With Bailey off the field we improved to finish 38-6. Deficit with Bailey on the field 20 - Deficit with Bailey off the field only 12! Negative impact...QED! But then you knew that didn't you?






His fine was increased because of his previous record of "losing his cool"

You seem to be happy to accept " a bit of biff" and "man-up" when your hero is envolved but critical when its Mr Cross - nothing to do with competition for the Bailey's spot I suppose?



Having been roughed up & niggled by Mr Crabtree & Co Mr Bailey's response was to have a pop at a Stand Off. Whist I agree this was not the normal cheap shot associated with Ryan it was IMO still a bit of a cheap shot.

Where has Cross brought the biff? I just see silly penalties.

By 'niggled' I suppose you mean chicken winged? That's ok then.

He did whallop Brown, that I have no problem with, he was milking like the immoral little letch he is so TMFMISL gave him something to go down about. Then followed it up and smashed the biggest disgrace in NRL history, where's the issue?

As for the points scored and when, Bailey's antics didn't allow the score board to blow-out or cost us the game. So it didn't have a negative impact on us. If anything it brought us to life and put some fire in the other forwards' otherwise flat bellies. And like you get taught early on if you get sent off make sure you're not walking alone. But he was got at and the card reds were fair enough, Brown should have gone though as well.

The team that's selected is fine with me. All the coaches from Powell to Mac play TMFMISL, show me a trophy win where you don't see the 1000KW grin from Mr Bailey. History matters, but he earns his selcetion on form and the hand pickings of the 5 games you have mentioned (followed up by Mac waxing lyrical) show that he is there on merit and we are a stronger unit with his services. Simples.

Ride on cowboy.

If Cross intended to fend using an horizontal forearm then I guess it must have been deliberate first, poor technique second and perhaps clumsy third.

The incidents (viewed in isolation) were similar enough in that they both involved the ball carrier using a raised horizontal forearm as a fend/bumper. Both connected at chest level, both ended up above the shoulder.



No doubt although the two match ban was specifically for the fend with the forearm and not the preceeding incident. Ganson reported it as an elbow IIRC (arguably invented to justify a red card) and something the disciplinary panel dismissed .

The panel appear pre-disposed to support (rather than undermine) the officials when they have taken the ultimate in game sanction.

By using an argument based on your "Ifs" and "guesses" you can read into it what you will in order to make a case. But that doesn't make you right.

The fact is in the Tomkins case he was sent off because in the ref's opinion the arm was deliberately raised into the face after contact to cause injury and who will doubt it knowing Tomkins involvement in the preceding brawl and this players violent history.

While in Cross's case he was not sent off (was he even put on report by the ref?) as the ref did not think anything was deliberate and neither did the Castleford players. A penalty yes but further action no.

But you seem not to want to recognise that one was deemed to be deliberate while the other was accidental. A big difference.



I think that the panel, quite correctly, took into consideration the preceding events and Tomkins part in the brawl and judged that he was deliberately violent. The histerical Eddie & Stevo also incorrectly reported the Cross incident as using the elbow.

Many players are penalised and suspended for contact with the forearm including Ablett this season and Lauitiiti a couple of years ago on Westwood. Morley was regularly in trouble for it and Bailey was up before the beak on the same charge. In many cases where it is the ball carrying arm that makes contact it is not deliberate as is often the tackler that makes contact with the ball carrying arm before it can be withdrawn.

Just to be a pedant but players don't get put on report, incidents in the game do.

Surley the last few pages should be transferred to TMFMISL thread?

So far he has made fewer silly penalities than Bailey per game! A contact sport like RL will occassionally have a bit of biff and I am sure should the occassion arise Cross will not take a step backwards and certainly will not hide behind his scrumhalf like Bailey shamefully did.



No I mean he was bested by Crabtree & co and didn't like it.



You appear to like foul and violent play. I don't. To "wallop" a half back does not make Bailey a man to be feared but rather despised. "Smashed" !!!!



You still avoid the fact before Bailey disgraced himself he had "marshalled" our defence to be 20-0 down. Nice technique!



Bailey has very limited skills - in fact he is basically just a tackler. They used to say tacklers are 2 a penny and you could go down to Buz Vale and sign up several good tacklers any weekend.

All the coaches play the squad that they have. Bailey has been a low cost fringe player that has been lucky to have been around to enjoy the trophy success that creative players like Sinfield, Maguire and Burrow have achieved. Note Big Mac has also waxed lyrical regarding Hauraki!

Hi Ho Silver!

JC and BB the "When Harry met Sally" of SS.com

Or neccessarily wrong? Unlike some I don't presume to know what others think.



The refs opinion was that an elbow was used - the disciplinary panel dismissed there had been any use of an elbow.

Tomkins violent history? He's a rugby league forward, not Ghandi.

The disciplinary panel on the Tomkins send off opened the case by stating: [i In the Panel’s opinion you struck a Hull FC player (Yeaman) in the face with your forearm whilst in possession of the ball. The Panel believed that you had raised your forearm at the defender as he made the tackle, contact was made with the face of your opponent, this contact was reckless, and that it had the potential to cause your opponent injury. The Panel believed that in raising your forearm as you did; you ought to have been aware of an obvious risk of the forearm making contact with the head, but nonetheless raised the forearm where a reasonable person would not do so. In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade B offence (Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – forearm in possession of the ball - reckless). [/i

I am wondering which part of that description could not equally have been applied to the Ben Cross incident at Castleford?



Why would a referee need to place an incident on report that they had seen clearly for themselves and dealt with. The 'on report' system is surely only there for incidents they are unsighted or unsure about. In any case the referee doesn't need to put any incident on report these days as all games are scrutinised in full by the video review panel who in this case referred it on to the full disciplinary panel. How do you know the Castleford player's didn't think it was deliberate? They were receiving an unexpected penalty while not in possession and quite rightly allowing the referee to deal with the occurrence of foul play.



Deemed by who? The referee who saw the use of an elbow (not seen by the disciplinary panel) or the referee who saw a bump that ended in an opposition player's face. I saw both incidents the same .... perhaps because they basically were the same. A raised horizontal forearm used as a fend, that contacted a defender in the chest and raised up into the neck/head area.

As a ball carrier you either raise a horizontal forearm or you don't. If you do it's almost always (if not always) a deliberately action to try and bump defenders away. If it's raised and used horizontally it's also liable to continue to raise up after the initial bump/contact as it did in both these comparable instances.



The panel dealt with the two incidents seperately. Tomkins was not the aggressor in the first incident and was acting in self-defence after being pushed twice and punched before (understandably?) retaliating. Unfortunately I haven't seen any footage of this and so I am relying on the Disciplinary Panel's report into the incident.



When has Ablett been suspended this season for use of a forearm?



What has this got to do with the Cross incident?

Ok Tonto we'll leave that in the 'Wait and See' file, good one.

This point seems to counter-argue this following sentence,

"You appear to like foul and violent play. I don't."

If Mr Bailey gets involved lets take the moral high-ground, but if Cross in theory gets involved it's all casual 'wont take a backward step' and thats alright.

Talk about non-subtle agendas. That one was painful.

0/10 on that one Old Boy, must try harder.

How do you know the earnings of Mr Bailey?

I like peoples assuming of salaries. It really under-pins and highlights the utter tosh they come out with. Because if they state the un-known as fact, how can we take other 'opinions' seriously.

I questioned Tonto's rugby acumen and it looks as if I was correct to do so. And please do not be as condesending to write-off Baileys medals as 'lucky' to be around, like he is a passenger. He makes his contribution, like the rest of the team in recent years in the line of silverwear. Yes the above mentioned players are very creative, and they are allowed to be especially when the pack (including TMFMISL) get on top.

You have sinken deeper and have now left edgy points to one side and are just spraying verbal horse. This does you no favours.

Your rugby acumen allegation has been answered. Thanks.

We agree Tomkins is not Ghandi - but but he has earned a reputation for violence.




The part highlighted above in red was the judgement of the panel having reviewed the evidence - Note: "contact was made with the face"

RFL Panel Quote re Cross:
"Player leads with forearm, initial contact with chest and shoulder of opponent, rise up to contact with neck and face, penalty sufficient " Note: "initial contact with chest and shoulder"

In both cases the ref was not unsighted. With Tomkins he was sure that the contact with the face was intentional. In the Cross case the ref was sure that there was no intent and only worth a penalty.



Because they did not react against Cross which normall6y happens when players think they have been deliberatly fouled eg the Tomkins case.



Sorry I meant last season funnily enough against a Tomkins!



Just pointing out example that most forwards fall foul of use of the forearm at some stage. But there is a difference between reckless with intent and just clumsy.

My point was he didn't back down against Josh Perry and he didn't throw the first punch but he didn't take a backward step either.



I do not like deliberate foul or ly play. Its negative and shows a lack of skill. Neither am I justifying it if it had been Cross. However if the opposition start something I will not be critical of our players defending one another or themselves. EG if a prop forward hits a half back then its fair do's to go to the assistance of the half back.

Bailey is often the perpetrator of trouble as the whole of Superleague knows which is why he is so disliked and also why Tomkins is so disliked.

So do keep up at the back BB and 0/10 to you young man.

Good thread this.

Quite. But if you think Bailey is one of the higher paid established players then your opinion is as flaky as a Donald Trump haircut!



I have consistently acknowleged Baileys usefullness as a benchman over the years and I also have posted when Bailey has been outstanding. Because these occassions are not that frequent is testament to his position as no more than a useful squad member of the years. In fact I will go as far as to say a very useful squad member over the years.

However lets not get carried away. To put his skills in perspective just look at any of the GF winning teams that Bailey has been part of and rank each player in order of importance.



Hit a raw nerve eh.

Translates in reality to Perry owned Cross.

I don't deal with assumptions or finger in the air stuff. I'll leave that to you.

I prefer analytical acumen.

No need to bring Top Trumps scalp into matters.

Thanks for the apology.

I accept.

Earned with who? The referees, the disciplinary panel. You should have little difficulty pointing to the other instances he's been sent off and banned then to justify this apparent reputation?



So you're saying (in the disciplinary panel's view) that if the initial contact is made with the chest it doesn't matter where it ends up?

Odd then that the disciplinary panel on the Tomkins incident go on to conclude as their reason for the decision to impose a ban:

[i'The committee feel that while =#FF0000the initial contact was with the chest, the forearm was always going up and ended up in the face of your opponent. This had the potential for injury. This view was backed by the referee who felt that the incident warranted a dismissal. Therefore the committee feel that a 2 match suspension is to be imposed but no fine in this case.'[/i

I'm still finding it difficult to spot the dis-similarities between the Tomkins and Cross incidents. The panel are even using the referee's report as justification despite dismissing his view that the contact was made with a raised elbow. Without seeing a raised elbow does Ganson/touch judge dismiss?



How do you know this? The fact Ganson chose to consult with his touch judge (who it appeared had a much clearer view of the incident when reviewing the TV footage) would suggest otherwise. This is classic Ganson by the way. Not my decision - only acting on the touch judge's advise. You hear him using this line all the time to the players during games and indeed appeared to do so in the opening couple of minutes to Jamie Peacock on Saturday re a forward pass decision against Webb. However when he sees an indescretion he acts (without the need to consult, stop or even think - often harshly), as evidenced by his sending off of Cahill.



The Castleford players did react. The fact they didn't react violently proves nothing. The fact Wigan and Hull players reacted violently proves nothing also. It has already been established tempers were running high in that game immediately prior to the Tomkins/Yeaman incident and indeed centred on the same two players.



Fair enough on both counts. Apology accepted.



The only difference here that I see is a system where one hand washes the other. Referee sends a player off - the Disciplinary panel finds just cause to back that decision up. Referee doesn't send a player off - the Disciplinary panel find excuses to back that decision up also.

The more I review the Ben Cross one on Daryl Clark the worse it gets.

Fortunately coach McDermott saved the disciplinay a job this week.

...and so the agenda against Bailey becomes clear.

Shocking.

You must have spent too long watching your beloved Salford to have missed out on J Tomkins's bad reputation:

1. This year Red card for leading with the elbow and 2 match ban. Also involved in fight with Yeaman.
2. Topped the SL penalty count last season.
3. Before the 4 Nations he was told to clean up his act and the former GB coach said "This lad has a tendency to give penalties away like I sup tea"
4. In 2009 he was 6th in the SL yellow card list

I can also remember a couple of other games where he should have been sent off with one of them for kicking a player. Most observers would agree the both the Tomkins brothers have a nasty side to their game.



No. I am saying the ref and panel decided that Tomkins forearm was clearly going to finish up in the opponents face intentionally While the ref and the panel felt Cross's error was not intentional.


Tomkins Case:
[i'The committee feel that while the initial contact was with the chest, =#FF0000the forearm was always going up and ended up in the face of your opponent. This had the potential for injury. This view was backed by the referee who felt that the incident warranted a dismissal. Therefore the committee feel that a 2 match suspension is to be imposed but no fine in this case.'[/i.



Yes you are right with only 5 games played he "rested" Bailey again

Typo and you know it . Grow up

Doesn't alter my point that he didn't take a step backward.