Sounds like it. If Chalmers hadn't messed up the finances we'd probably still have Wildie. Something doesn't feel right about this incident but we are where are.

Could we use Race as backup hooker off the bench. Not much difference between hookers and half backs nowadays.

Now I don't know whether George is innocent or guilty but from what I have gleaned things don't sit easily. The video seems to be pretty inconclusive and more telling perhaps is that JK said he was mystified why the charge had been brought. To me that seems to suggest an element of doubt. Now would the disciplinary tribunal convict if there was any doubt - probably not. So there must some other evidence to back up the guilty verdict. Now wouldn't it be great if in the spirit of transparency the tribunal made public what that further evidence was. I'm not holding my breath.

Full report below.
GEORGE FLANAGAN - BRADFORD
FEATHERSTONE V BRADFORD - CHALLENGE CUP
RANGE OF RECOMMENDED SANCTIONS IN RELATION TO CHARGED GRADE* :
8+

DETAILS OF CHARGE / REASON FOR NF :
Law 15.1 (i) Grade F – Attack to testicles

DECISION:
Charge

INCIDENT:
Attack to testicles in the 32nd minute

PLEA:
Not Guilty

SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE CHARGE / EVIDENCE:
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 25th March, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(i) during the above Match. The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 32nd minute of the above Match. The incident was placed on report. In the Panel’s opinion, after completing a tackle you promoted your hand to the groin area of an opponent (Bussey) and applied pressure to the genital area. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary, had the potential to cause your opponent an injury, against the true spirit of the game and constitute Misconduct. In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade F offence (Behaves in way contrary to the true spirit of the game – Testicles attacking). In accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the normal suspension range for such offence is 8 plus matches.

SUMMARY OF PLAYER'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE CHARGE / EVIDENCE:
Player in attendance alongside Head Coach John Kear and Assistant Coach Mark Dunning. JK talked the panel through the footage and explained that the player was making a tackle and attempting to slow down the play the ball. He vehemently denies the accusation that have been levelled at the player. He explains that there is no contact shown on the footage and feels that the opponents reaction was not immediate and also that following the opponent took full part in the kick chase will resulted immediately after play had resumed. He felt that this would not be possible if the alleged act had occurred as the opponent would have been in pain. JK again denied that the player had done it and stressed that this is a very serious accusation and could be potentially career ending for his player. He felt the charge is not proven. JK was also able to ask questions to the opponent who joined the call. GF then addressed the tribunal are reiterated the points made above. He explained that the charge had knocked him for six and felt he was been blamed for something he had done previously. He strongly denied the accusation and remembers the incident in question very well. He added he was trying to slow down the ruck down. MD also added that he had heard a touchline discussion between the pair after the incident stating he heard the opponent say “I have got you now enjoy your time on the sidelines.” He also felt that the players arm is kept straight at all times in the tackle and does not change position.

DECISION:
Guilty

REASON FOR DECISION:
This is a serious allegation and we have given detailed consideration to all the evidence that has been put before us. On the one hand we have the evidence of Mr Bussey who gave a clear and articulate account of a deliberate and forceful grabbing of his testicles. Mr Kear makes has made a number of observations to the panel concerning his evidence – he observes that in his view he would expect Mr Bussey to have appeared to be in more pain; he would not have expected him to play on in the way that he did and the complaint that he made to be more forceful. Mr Kear submits that when you take those factors his evidence should not be relied upon. In addition Mr Kear points to the evidence of Mr Dunning the Assistant Coach – he gave evidence that Mr Bussey said on leaving the field – “I have got you now enjoy your time on the sidelines.” Mr Kear submits that you cannot rely on Bussey’s evidence and when you consider that the footage is inconclusive the case does not add up. We have also heard the evidence of Mr Flanagan who has given a vehement and impassioned denial of any wrongdoing – and ruled out any possibility of mistake on Mr Bussey’s part. In addition he makes the point that he has previously been accused of a similar allegation and accepted it at the outset the implication being that he would do so today were he to have done what is alleged. That previous matter has played no part in our consideration as to whether this case has been proved. Mr Kear submits you simply have word on word and from that the case cannot be proved. But to simply submit its word on word and the footage takes us nowhere is perhaps too simplistic an approach to the evidence. We were impressed with Mr Bussey’s account. He was in our view an honest witness who was trying to do his best to recall the incident. He made mention of a forceful grab of his testicles repeating more than once that you know when your testicles have been grabbed. Mr Flanaghan ruled out any contact whatsoever with Mr Bussey’s testicles saying that his hand is nowhere near them. Secondly, the footage that we have seen makes it clear that his reaction was immediate- as was the very complaint that he repeated before us today. He can be seen to be incensed; he can be heard to say he grabbed my knackers, he said himself that he had to watch his response as his on- field character is not the best so he can’t be going to hit anyone. If this did not happen it means that in that instance as a result of a totally innocuous and run of the mill tackle Mr Bussey formed the view to make up this allegation; an extremely serious allegation in order to get Mr Flanagan into trouble. There is no evidence that there is history between them. No reason has been suggested that why in that moment he would lie in that way. In addition he has come forward this evening to repeat these allegations which is not an easy course to take. The comment that he was heard to make after the incident when the two of them came off does not in our view undermine his account. We note that he was never given the opportunity to deal with that when questions were being asked of him but we are of the view that was likely inexperienced advocacy rather than anything else. Such comment if made in those terms is consistent with him reminding Mr Flanagan of the trouble he has got himself in. Finally the recording – it is inconclusive but it is consistent with the allegations that Mr Bussey makes it is clear that there is a second movement of the arm back beneath the body of Mr Bussey as he lays under Mr Flanagan consistent with him grabbing his testicles as alleged. Accordingly we are more than comfortably satisfied that this was a deliberate grabbing of the testicles and the allegation has been proved.

SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION
• Player charged under RFL Rule 15.1(i) Behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game – testicles - attacking • MRP reviewed an incident which took place in approx. 32nd minute • The incident was placed on report by the match referee • Attacker makes a break and is tackled around the waist by opponent • Opponent makes immediate complaint to the referee and confronts Mr Flanagan after the tackle • Player’s submissions reiterate the claim made at the time • In Referees report Mr Bussey states that Mr Flanagan has attacked his testicles • Footage does not show Mr Flanagan’s hand placed in the area however does show Mr Flanagan’s arm come away from the opponents body and then move back in towards the area • Graded F due to; - Charge starts at Grade F - Unnecessary and not part of the game - Clear intent due to the nature of the contact – could not be accidental - No place in the game for such acts - Brings the game into disrepute

SUMMARY OF PLAYER'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION
JK reaffirmed the not guilty plea. He added that the player is 34 years of age and coming towards the end of his career.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS
08/08/19 – Attack to testicles – Grade F (8 matches) 27/06/19 – Trips – intentional trip – Grade C (2 matches) 17/01/19 – Dangerous Contact – Grade B (1 match)

REASONS FOR DECISION
The Tribunal thanks both sides for their submissions and compliments the player and his representatives on the way they conducted themselves during the hearing. However, the Tribunal are in agreement that this act is an intimate invasion and appears to be something that is creeping into the game. They therefore feel a suspension of 10 matches should be handed down along with the standard fine of £250.

SUSPENSION
10 matches

FINE
£250

Cheers. Little or no doubt now.

How is there little or no doubt? Still basically saying they believe one word over another, hardly proven beyond doubt!

Seems as if they just chose to believe Bussey despite no clear evidence. Flanagan's previous record I feel must have counted against him.

Can't see an appeal being successful.

It's beyond the pale for a player to go to that level of effort to try and get another player in trouble. It's also beyond the pale to attack someone's knackers. So basically either Bussey is a lying Sh1thouse, or Flanagan is a lying Sh1thouse!

Really reflects well on the game.

Call the lawyers?

You've got two guys with awful disciplinary records and you wouldn't put it passed either of them to do the above.

Kear seems adamant Flanagans innocent though. Considering how strong he was on Lilley for his challenge, when he could have had every excuse on the books for that "he's not that type player"
"it was just other enthusiasm"
"mistimed after so long out"


But Kear was really strong in condemning Lilley, rightly so as protecting late challenge on HBs is something the refs/RFL have just let carrying on in the last few years. I just find it hard to believe Kear would be so harsh on Lilley, then defend Flanagan of he even thought for a moment he was guilty.

That's not to say Flanagan is innocent. I genuinely don't know. But as others have said it doesn't sit well with me. As Bullseye said his last incident probably counted against him and may even have been a deciding factor (no matter what the disciplinary say) and for that he has no one to blame but himself.

Totally agree with the comments on here, in contrast to the Facebook pages which seem to be largely supporting him claiming "lack of evidence". I was dismayed when JK gave him another contract after all his previous antics. A disgrace to the club which hardly needs another reason to be given grief. Whilst a team can benefit from having a player who gets up the oppositions noses (my mate called him "a pound shop Jimmy Lowes"icon_wink.gif Flanagan takes it way too far and is a liability. If we continue to stick by him it's another reason for me to lose interest. My heroes are those who played the toughest game in a fair but hard manner - Jeff Grayshon, Roy Powell and the like.

Agree completely. After this most recent disciplinary issue we should be saying goodbye to Flanagan at the end of the season.

This is a bit of an eye opener for me. This incident will end (and probably define) a players career. There’s no conclusive video evidence either way. And it comes down to one persons word vs the other. There has to be more balance of proof than that.
And take a sodding lawyer next time.

Caisly wasn't available

It doesn’t sound clear cut to me from the written reasons.

What I can’t work out is why the panel state that “no reason was suggested” as to why Bussey would make it up. But they go on to suggest a reason themselves in terms of why Bussey might have made a comment to Flanagan afterwards.

Surely the panel should ask for Bussey’s reasons, not guess the reason themselves?

First time I've read through this and I am definitely not a Flanagan fan but...

Isn't English Law is based on the burden of proof being on the accuser and in this you can't even begin to think Bussey/RFL have proved beyond reasonable doubt he did it.

Still, more evidence of being the RFL pets.

Flanagan's response: https://twitter.com/Georgeflanagan9/sta ... 41/photo/1

Flanagan's response: https://twitter.com/Georgeflanagan9/sta ... 41/photo/1

If you believe Flanagan then the question you have to ask is why Bussey feels so strongly about Flanagan that he would go to such great lengths to invent an attack to the knackers. What's the history behind that?

He must have thought Flanagan would have been carded straight away to get an immediate advantage. Once it went on report Flanagan was a bit flat in that game anyway, so advantage was gained. He couldn’t recant his story after that without running the risk of being disciplined himself. That’s all I’ve got.

Be interesting to see if Bussey plays the next time we are due to play Fev. If he has indeed stiched up GF id imagine there will be a few of our lads 'looking' for him during the game.

Given hes known for being a bit of a s**thouse, it wouldnt surprise me if he coincidentally picked up a knock that keeps him out for that game.

If Flanagan has persuaded or lads to their satisfaction that this is a stitch up they'd surely want to give Bussey a big hello.

The club were worried about Flanagans mental health after the ban was handed down and believe they are keeping an eye on him. After the hearing one of coaches followed him home to make sure he got home and didn't take another option.

Does anyone know if the postponed Toulouse game counts as part of Flanagan's suspension?

Its not postponed. Its been cancelled so is removed from fixture list. Cant see it counting towards ban.