Absolutely ridiculous that Bateman has been charged for this tackle.

Nothing wrong with it whatsoever. If charges are going to be handed out for tackles like this then teams will constantly be missing half a dozen players every week.

Of course it's relevant, if the ref had shouted held, Bateman would have stopped doing what he was doing and it would never have happened!

Secondly it's relevant because before the ref has shouted 'held' Bateman is entirely within his rights to continue to get the opponent on the deck and he did what he did in the attempt to do just that.







Sorry, but that's rubbish. We watch someone do something, we all immediately form a view as to whether we think they did it deliberately, accidentally, or recklessly. The same judgements must be made by the referee and officials. The same judgements must be made by the disciplinary in arriving at their judgment.

What you seem to be suggesting is absurd. Only one player can say what he intended, that is Bateman, and everyone has to take his word since no-one else knows what's in his head?? Do you really think that? Can you see a flaw at all?

3 match ban!!!!!

Complete joke

Unreal. So 3 matches for dumping someone on their ar$e.

Better off breaking their jaw, or elbowing them in the face.
Absolute joke.

The mind boggles.. it really does.

Suck it up and learn.........Hope this type of tackle is looked at every week now!

Dream on.

Exactly Debaser, dream on, if you read the description of the charge it applies to any high tackle which necessarily must apply undue pressure to the head neck spine etc etc and how many three match bans have there been for a high tackle?

So far this season we have had players suspended when ref did not give a pen;when he sent a diff player off; when a pen has been given but not put on report. Every time we have recd a suspension via a review at Red Hall - is it coincidence or a conspiracy. Last week we had no-one up before the beak but they sure have made up for it with Bateman.

How many players have we had suspended this season?

Absolutely ridiculous, he shouldn't be facing a ban at all but 3 games is just a joke.

Can't believe so many people are up in arms about this, very reckless what should have been dealt with by childs at the time, simply becouse it's not called up every time it's done in a match doesn't make it ok, funny how it's the same people who's bitching about batement were bitching about bridge maybe not being banned! Can't have it both ways!

Batemens a young kid with a hell of a future in the game, daft decisions this early in his career need ironing out as soon as Possible, feilden at a similar sort of age was also called for tackle technique, and I can remember everyone screaming foul of that too, helped him no end though!

I am sure Fielden got fined for running with his knees raised. The fans paid the fine if I recall.

Summerising of the hearing

The committee are of the opinion that this type of technique that the player has used is dangerous and has the potential for serious injury. The committee note that there is not a clear guilty plea however the club do admit that the player has been placed in a vulnerable position so credit is given in that regard. The player does not have a great disciplinary record for someone of a young age however the committee feel that a 3 match suspension and a £300 fine is appropriate.

Your club acknowledge its dangerous so why cant you guys

If you look at the Bateman tackle in total isolation, it is a bad one and at the time I was expecting Child to take action. I thought it was dangerous and unnneccesary.

The problem is that the way Rl is officiated is not clear and sometimes when it is clear it is ridiculous.

How can being the third person from your team in 10 minutes to be offside warrant a 10 minute sin bin, yet committing a high tackle or running in to a fight simply gets a penalty?

The question of intent simply masks the issue. Intent cannot normally be proven for on field incidents, unless there is an admission.

If it had been done to one of ours, we'd be crying out like the wire fans are!

someone needs to have a wordwith JOhn!

Not surprised with the verdict.

Bateman's going to have start playing touch and pass in future the way he keeps getting targetted by the officials.

This just made me laugh it is controlled aggression he needs westwood has learnt this so has morley

Bring back the biff!

Exactly! they learnt and so will john, all these people saying he needs to be sorted, and on other forums saying he needs to change his attitude is absurd he is an 18 year old kid playing for the club he loves and wants to make an impression maybe he is a touch over eager at the moment but it took them two a hell of a lot longer to calm down than it will john, with experience and maturity it will sort itself out.

I wouldn't. I would be like all the Wire fans were at the time. Oblivious to any offence.

didn't seem like much at the time.. but when you watch it back you can clearly see that its a crusher tackle.. im sure the lad didnt mean to cause injury with it.. and its probably down to poor technique rather than malice.

But the rules are the rules for a reason... its those types of tackles which could lead to a broken neck.... if a warrington player would have done that i would have no qualms whatsoever with a 3 match ban.

I thought Jeffries was more at fault for grabbing the back of his head/neck in the tackle.

Anyway it's done now, so let's hope the 9 fit/not banned players we have left will do the business next weekend. I would play the cleaners in the pack, and move Koppy to FB and Burgess on the wing outside Manu. Then I'd close a couple of turnstiles at 3pm sharp and them old lads can go on the bench. They could have their kit on under their coats.

Jeffries and Kearney at prop - London Broncos/Harlequins/Fulham* - * delete as applicable - don't realise what is going on till half time by which time they are 50 points down.

That is one thing you can always say with certainty about the Bulls - we never do things the easy way!