Why he had to be slammed on the floor is also baffling...he was all ready in a position from which he couldn't off load or do anything. why he needed to be picked up from a sitting down position to be dropped so your head is forced down and someone falling on it is what gets me. Like its been said before... IMO poor technique, would have agreed with 1-2 games and a slap on the wrist.

Couldn't make out what the fuss was about, even after seeing the replays. I'm knocking 50 and not especially fit but don't reckon I'd be particularly affected by a tackle like that. Maybe jarred a bit but nothing worse.

Absoluteley ridciulous, the challenge was clumsy, and probably deserved a 1-2 game ban at the very most. Where on earth have they got 3-5 from??? I have seen this tackle so many times and it can be dangerous, but never has it been punished until now. I gurantee if that game wasn't on the tele nothing would have come of this incident. The inconsistencies are a joke and its interesting to see Carvell has got off with kicking out again. You don't regain your feet by kicking out.

really? you're defending that? it was a house tackle, i'd have been disgusted had it been a warrington player doing that.

yeah cos thats much better than potentially being in a wheelchair due to a severe neck injury.

It was a type of crusher tackle which as we all know are a big no no.

Haha what makes me laugh is that the MAJORITY (not all) of wire fans wouldn't be bothered if it had been the other way round and don't pretend you wouldn't.

Last game Bridge could have easily snapped Jeffries neck back with that forearm and there was intent in that. Similar with Chase's forearm (except he did damage). If Bridge gets 1 game and Chase 3-4 games then Bateman should get 2 games as I rekon its closer to Bridge's incident than Chases. But dont come on here saying you would be disgusted if it was a warrington player performing the tackle.

Imho I wouldn't ban it and don't see anything wrong particularly didnt put pressure on his neck it was spread out through the shoulders and chest mainly. He had Hodgson lifted slightly anyway then when ref shouted held he dropped on him (not picked him up then rammed him into the ground) but literally fell on him. If it had been a warrington player I wouldnt have been bothered just liek Carvells kicking, in my opinion (as a player at semi-pro) then I think that unless your legs go near the opposition head or groin then your okay, all it is is trying to get the player off you and regain your feet a few seconds quicker.

The world has gone mad. Seriously.

Depends what their leeway is with the ban, can they look at now its been sent through as Grade D and say "no intent" and ban him for less than 3 or do they have to either say nothing to answer or min 3 games?

If they are allowed to lower the Grade after the panel reviews it then I agree with you, send it through with intent and let them clear it up but if they can't then they should cite them the other way. Assume no intent and then let them ramp up the ban if they see intent while reviewing.

Anyone know what leeway they have?

No, the ref seen it, he even said "no penalty but I'm putting it on report". How can the ref see a 3-5 game infraction but not call it? The idiocy is the ref if the challenge was so bad.

I don't think there was intent on Bateman's part, his actions after it were apologetic, which is more than what you'll get from most RL players.

he was apologetic cos he realised he was in the ing for a ing house challenge,

This years worst argument. I'd rather take potentially getting an ijnury and not ending up with an injury over getting a real life serious injury but in cat' world of make belief real life clearly doesn't count.

IMO, Bateman was doing as every SL player does and that is, either playing to the whislte or in this instance playing until HELD is called, and I don't recall Childs calling held on that tackle, Bateman was trying to complete the tackle.

There is only one person who really knows what the intention was.

You?

Maybe they should ban KP aswell, poor Hodgson might have bruised from that one.

The 'he might have got injured' line is a poor one, you could say that about every tackle. It's a contact sport. Funny how none of the Wire forwards came rushing in, they're not ones to let a dirty tackle go unnoticed.

As usual I'm talking more sense than most but I'm about 70/30 sure not deliberate on this one.

Funny that. Because with the Bridge incident where there was less injury to the opposition player you said:



Where's the consistency? It's a joke &/or a disgrace.

If a careless and mistimed tackle that has no intent behind it and ultimately leads to the ball carrier going head first into the ground results in a ban then I really don't see what the difference is here. Bateman dropped onto the top of Hodgson's spine and it could have been a lot worse than it fortunately was.

I don't think there was any malicious intent but it was still dangerous.

Did he really drop onto his spine? I must watch it again. It seemed to me he had Hodgson in a kind of bear hug and dropped him into the ground ar5e first. It looked fairly inocuous as Hodgson wasn't lifted more than a few inches and Bateman wasn't forcing his whole weight onto him.

I would agree that it looked like one of those types of tackles you see more of nowadays when the defender is imposing on the attacker to dominate the collision and slow the PTB down using some kind hold that makes the defender unable to move at all. However these sorts of challenges are increasingly common, yet not penalised consistently.

I can see why the grading exists for certain challenges however it looks to me like Bateman's challenge was very much toward the lesser end of the scale when it comes to danger. Hodgson wasn't lifted feet from the ground and slammed into it. Even a minimum of 3 game suspension seems very OTT to me when these sorts of challenges go on a lot (albeit few end up with the medical team coming on).

If Bateman does get a suspension (and it looks like 3 games is the minimum thanks to the inflexible weighting the RFL have got themselves) then I would hope to see this sort of tackle outlawed a lot more and more consistency from the officials (stop laughing).

Once again I think we've got a raw deal here. If Bateman deserves a ban it certainly shouldn't be more than a game or two at the most. To give him more than that makes this incident look much worse than it was and highlights the ridiculous comparison with the Chase incident that everyone bar the RFL seems to think was under-punished.

As I saw it (several times thanks to replays on TV) the tackle was effectively complete, it had nothing to do with the lifting. Bateman dropped on Hodgson to slow PTB, but Hodgson was sat upright so he landed on his head/kneck. I didn't see the Chase incident live but on video it looks terrible. Possibly the consequences from the RFL judging it deliberate were too much for them to contemplate.

BUT THE REF HAD NOT CALLED 'HELD'



Correct, but I don't think there is any way Bateman [iintended[/i to do what he ended up doing, which was a fluke due to the unfortunate coincidence that as he did what he did, the tackled player happened to line up in an exactly vertical position.

I am sure neither player thought there was any malice in it, and I'm equally sure that Bateman was sorry for the result of his effort, as he went out of his way to apologise immediately afterwards. It looks like everyone who saw it "live" including the fans and the players didn't think (regardless of the result) Bateman had done anything malicious, which is why nobody came charging in or remonstrating.

Nor did the ref, or the linesmen, all of whom we presume were watching the game, call for a penalty. So they all saw it same as us.

I do presume it went on report due to yet more VR interference in the process, but even without that, the way things are going the Match review lot would have singled Bateman out anyway. I expect that if one of our players farted in a scrum he'd be at Red Hall on Tuesday.

Hence the word 'effectively'. The chances of Hodgson suddenly jumping to his feet with 2 men on his back (or kneck) were slim. My statement was in response to Sam who questioned whether the offence was in relation to Hodgson being lifted & dropped.
It is irrelevant as regards the suggested offence if he was held or not.

I do realise that no Bulls player has ever deliberately commited foul play & that there is a RFL conspiracy against them.

But until the ref calls held you know very well that plenty still goes on in the tackle, especially nowadays. Of course he wasn't about to jump to his feet but I expect he was trying to get into a position where he could make a quicker PTB and Bateman was doing his best to prevent that. You're saying I think that what Bateman did was foul play regardless?

If that's right then why was there no penalty or any sign of players coming into remonstrate with Bateman? The reaction was pretty much nil from all concerned.

Given that then how can he suddenly be up for as much as a 5 match ban?

If he gets a worse ban than Chase then it just goes to show the RFL disciplinary committee is more out of touch than it's ever been and I would say it brings them into disrepute.

IMO it was a poor tackle, clumsily executed. I certainly don't think it warrants the severity of the charge.

What I don't think anyone can comment on is intent though. Only one person can comment on that and that is the player during the hearing. As much as you can say as a fan "he's not that sort of player, there's no intent" - fact is that no one really knows what is going through a player's head on the pitch.

And I'm absolutely NOT saying I think he had intent but just that I don't think trying to judge an individual's motives is necessarily useful.

I agree with this. As is often the case in most things, the truth is somewhere between the extremes of "Nowt wrong with it, we might as well play tiddlywinks" and "Bateman tried to rape him to death".