www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... Leeds.html Won't bet on him NOT playing at the w/e

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... Leeds.html Won't bet on him NOT playing at the w/e

It's more likely he will play, be MOTM, score a hattrick and be superb in defence than the likelihood of his ban being upheld.

If he gets to play on sunday then it's ridiculous.

What is the point in giving him a ban if he's just going to get it wiped off.


Plus, if we are working on a game plan against a Rhinos side without Webb, wouldn't it be a bit unfair on us to have him included in the Rhinos squad now?

Unfair doesn't matter when it comes to Leeds and the RFL.

Logically, if he is going to appeal, and the offence carries a 1-2 game ban, it should be only moved to one game, and the very best.

But realistically, he'll be playing.

Unfortunately, because the RFL have no balls.

Or he could have the ban increased.

If you read the discplinary report they are pretty clear he was in the wrong and that any contact with the head is an automatic ban. They also mention they are taking his previous appearances before board and cautions for the same offence into consideration. RFL are going to look really silly if they backtrack and totally clear him after issueing should unambigous discplinary report. Best I think webb can hope for, and I suspect likely result, is the ban being reduced to 1 match clearing him to play in the cup game v wigan. Would also fit with RFL's history of not banning players from big teams for cup/playoff games.

Pathetic.

I don't normally buy into these RFL conspiracy stuff, but I would be interested to see just how many times players have been up against a disciplinary board before their club's big derby match and not got a ban. I've certainly noticed quite a few times for the Bradford/Leeds and Wigan/Saints derbies and always thought "well, they don't want them missing for the big games eh?".

Never thought it was a Leeds bias or anything like that, but I've always thought the RFL don't like to ban players for big matches (such as derbies, playoffs, cup semis/finals). They only tend to do it if it's something particularly bad that they really can't get away with letting someone off.

Obviously that isn't a 100% thing, but it seems to be generally accurate.

I don't think they will increase the ban. It will either be reduced to one game - or kept at 2 games with an increased fine for wasting the panels time.

To be fair to Webb, he tackles like that all the time and generally gets away with it!

Joke - before the Webb defence brigade go into overdrive!

I didn't think it was a joke, seemed like facts to me! You can add McGuire into that too....

The reasons a Club appeals a ban is usually a) Its an unjust punishment b) they are short of senior players due to injury .
Bradford have done that on numerous occasions usually for a) and had some success.
In this case I think b) is the underlying reason and will probably fail.

I thought the received wisdom on here was that McGuire can't tackle anyway

You can't complain if a club or player appeals, and let's not forget when Glenn had a 3 match ban overturned, admittedly it was a long time ago, but if we've benifited in the past we can't complain too much if somebody else does.

[urlhttp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/1651816.Morrison_s_three_match_ban_is_quashed/[/url

I'm not in a position to comment on the tackle as I've not seen it but I think he's probably guilty

Not legally he can't



Incidentally, it's not just Webb & McGuire that get away with high tackles more than they should. There's a lot of smaller players that seem to be allowed to tackle high and get away with it, unless it almost decapitates the opponent.

Rob Burrow is another one



No seriously, Sean Long & Richard Horne both spring to mind. When we had Hendo, he used to do it quite a bit and get away with it too.

You'd think the smaller players should be penalised more for high tackles, considering it's harder for them to hit round the head!

McGuire cant tackle full stop.

Did anyone seriously expect him not to appeal?

Burn Him

TBH, if his appeal fails and the ban is upheld then he should, imo, get an additional game ban. I believe that's the rule in football, if you appeal a ban without good reason you get an extra game for wasting everyone's time. I believe Ferdinand had something along these lines for Man Utd this season

The best result for us is that it'll be reduced to one and he'll be back in time for the Wigan game at our place. Can't see them scrapping it altogether TBH.

Presumably this new rule will only apply to teams you are envious of? As I've not see you suggest it for every other banned player who appeals.

I have seen it suggested before and it's something I agree with, but it depends on the video evidence and what foul play has been committed. If it's blatantly obvious that someone is guilty and they still waste time trying to appeal it, they should get an extra game for wasting the RFL's time. I haven't seen Webb's to be honest, so I have no idea if he deserved the ban or not.

Hey, the rule is even in Football Manager. If you appeal against bans too often when they were correct, you as the manager end up getting a match ban!


And the example of Rio Ferdinand is spot on, he did get an extra game added on. Although that was partly because, by appealing, it left him available for a League Cup tie (I think it may have even been the final), as the appeal was set for the week after, and the ban couldn't start until the appeal had been heard. I think the extra ban was kind of a "we know you've only appealed so you could play in the final, so miss an extra game you cheeky sod".

The same McGuire who has missed less tackles than Orford, Kearney, Sykes? Or are you confusing him with the Wigan coach?

What if you are only appealing against the severity of the ban?

But the likes of Orford, Kearney and Sykes aren't just support players. McGuire is.