www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/4858 I think articulates what many people are thinking. Well Said Eamon , I hope the idiots at the RFL are listening

www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/4858 I think articulates what many people are thinking. Well Said Eamon , I hope the idiots at the RFL are listening

And this is where it gets interesting ...

Yep , he's obviously gone public to rattle a few cages. The current system is a joke, how can a player get a 1 game ban for a late, high and pretty deliberate shoulder to the head that causes the damage it has.

Nice to get this out in derby week, hopefully means the officials at the DW will have their Micky Mac goggles on.

Quote ="No1 Saint"Yep , he's obviously gone public to rattle a few cages. The current system is a joke, how can a player get a 1 game ban for a late, high and pretty deliberate shoulder to the head that causes the damage it has.'" By my count that's more than half the league who have "blasted" the current system - will they listen? Admit they have ever made a mistake? Answers on a postcard www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-6742127 www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... onsistency www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-lea ... ms-3231816 www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... nary-panel www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... story.html www.totalrl.com/dragons-boss-bla ... ciplinary/

Quote ="No1 Saint"Yep , he's obviously gone public to rattle a few cages. The current system is a joke, how can a player get a 1 game ban for a late, high and pretty deliberate shoulder to the head that causes the damage it has.'" By my count that's more than half the league who have "blasted" the current system - will they listen? Admit they have ever made a mistake? Answers on a postcard www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-6742127 www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... onsistency www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-lea ... ms-3231816 www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... nary-panel www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... story.html www.totalrl.com/dragons-boss-bla ... ciplinary/

I suppose it had to be said, we mentioned last season that the officials and disciplinary will start to have a DIRECT impact on the result of a game instead of the players, looks as though thats coming to roost with the amount of complaints. We all know its a difficult job for a ref these days with players taking advantage, but its unbelievable the degree of incompetence of applying the rules these days.

The disciplinary have lost all credibility and are not far off corruption in there decisions.

Improvements in officials and disciplinary seem a long way off as the RFL heads are buried in sand.

The RFL gave the maximum they could



If you watch the replay properly the contact 1st hits Burns on his shulder and rides up thats a grade B offence which carries a Tariff of 1-2 matches. They gave Green the maximum 2 match ban and because he has a good discipline record he had an EGP available reducing it further.

Suspended within the rules as per RFL and whilst I agree with the poor officiating he seems to have forgotten to mention the 2 massively forward passes that led to tries you didn't deserve.

Nobody wants to see players injured but it is a part of the game and I'm not sure he would have been as vocal if the boot was on the other foot and one of your monsters had taken Kelly or campese out (even though you had a good go with the latter).

Get over it and move on. We beat you fair and square and I just hope you can patch up your team to beat Wigan and hull.

Watch the only 'true' derby tomorrow on sky and learn about passion and commitment from loyal rl fans

Secondary contact doesn't fracture cheekbones, let alone in 3 places. The tv evidence shown was at best for hkr inconclusive (because it was that late not even the tv cameras were expecting any further involvement) - it's as bad a shoulder charge as we've had since the ban was brought in - if Walmsely got a C grade last year, it had to be a C. It was incorrect, purely to back up the incorrect decision made on the field.

Taking bias out of the question do you agree with the logic that an action that caused no harm got a 2 game ban, and an action which broke a players cheekbone only got 1?

"Nobody wants to see players injured". Who are you trying to kid mate? Any player, whether that be a Saints player or a Hull KR player, who deliberately shoulder charges an opposition player, is not attempting to play by the rules and risks seriously injuring a player.

Why do you think it was done so early in the game? It is obvious. And even you, deep down, know full well that your team had a plan to "take out" Travis Burns. Just like Wigan did with Lance in the GF. It's a disgrace, whichever team does it.

Oh, and you've got your days all mixed up. The real derby is on Friday and is being held at the Wigan Athletic Football Stadium.

It seems to me that Saints fans have either short or selective memories. A couple of seasons ago, Meli and Wilkin carried out dreadful attacks to the heads of 2 Hull KR players. Meli nearly took the head off Hall and broke his arm in the attack which was so bad that even Child would agree when he was sent off, Wilkin merely got put on report. Both were banned which brought howls of derision from Saints fans. So can a Saints fan explain why was it so wrong for Saints players to be banned yet Green got off lightly?

If you can find evidence of your imaginary saints fan outrage at Meli being banned, I'll respond to your imaginary scenario.

Meli was banned for a clumsy tackle - I can't recall what he got but I bet it was more than 1 game. I vaguely remember Wilkin getting something too

Green (a prop) hit Burns (a Halfback) with his shoulder (now illegal), late (illegal) and in the face (illegal). He didn't get sent off which probably cost us 2 points, he got a pathetic 1 match ban and to add insult to injury Burns got a triple fracture for his troubles. We have every right to be annoyed.

One thing I do remember clearly is the amount of wailing and crying your lot did about Meli especially.

Erm, when you are referring to Saints fans, you should use the phrase 'some Saints fans'.

I do not have a short or a selective memory. Meli fully deserved his sending off, although calling it an "attack" is grossly misrepresenting the situation and does you no favours.

Wilkin should of walked too. Any deliberate attack to the head is disgraceful.

All I want, as a fan of my club and the game in general, is consistency. Wilkin should of seen red in the game you referred too. Green should of seen red last week. Simple.

Interesting to read Eamonn questioning the inconsistencies in the disciplinary process, ironically Neil Hudgell did the same last season...

One can only expect Eamonn to cop a fine too if we're talking about consistency...

It was late, he hit the head but if we being honest, he was unlucky to kop a bad injury like he has.

For me it's a 3 game ban.

Let's face it... Child was playing on as both he and the linesmen missed the tackle (just like the forward passes!!!).
It was only after Burns didn't get up, play stopped and Child watched the screen to see what had happened and then decided to put the incident on report.

This is why Imo televised games are treated different and either all should have a video ref or none at all.

If the video ref looked at it, then why wasn't he sent off ?

a) he didn't put the incident on report
b) refs aren't allowed to watch the screen, and the video ref can only get involved if the ref asks for an opinion (child didn't iirc)
c) I absolutely agree that all games should have some form of video ref. I see no reason to remove touch judges at the top level and allow constant communication between ref and video ref. We already did so with in goal judges and it would just be an extension of that philosophy.

I stand corrected... Child gave a penalty not put it on report. But I believe that was only because he was looking at the screen as Blair was about to play the ball before Child stopped the game because Burns stayed down.

Rightly or wrongly he indirectly used the screen to give the penalty.

Which goes back to the consistency issue, if the game was played on Sunday afternoon woth no screen to view, Blair plays the ball and the game continues.

Not sure our guests from KR are covering themselves in glory on this one.

Firstly the better team won. This was acknowledged by our coach and most posters.

The two passes were forward and accepted by most as such.

But Burns was taken out - & the motives have been clearly laid out by KR posters - and the suspension is a joke. To use examples such as Meli is bizarre as he received a hefty ban.

Eamon's statement is spot on and as ever very measured.

There is not usually animosity between us and KR so let's move on and concentrate on the real enemies this weekend.

How funny that a week after accusing our coach of "sour grapes", for saying certain tackling techniques need to be looked at and we need more consistency, that your owner should come out and say the same thing.

Lol, yeah exactly the same! Good one.

Interestingly though a late shoulder charge to face isn't really a form of tackling technique is it?

One was a terrible, unfortunate unavoidable accident.
One was late, high, and a banned technique.

Yup completely comparable. If Saints had done as hkr did, Smiths comments would of been totally justified ... But they didn't.