True. No doubt Potter already has views on Halley & will have seen enough of Finnigan to decide. I like Halley's effort but said a couple of year's ago he is not the required standard.

I don't think Halley's good enough. He might try hard but where is is sidestep or swerve? When did he last beat a man? He's quite quick but he never seems to beat anyone.

Just seemed to run like hell straight at the biggest guy in the defensive line...

It's as if Langley coaches him! "Right Dave run as fast as you can into the nearest defender".

Or catch anyone

Must be 9 months at least.

He stopped Paleasena all by him self a couple of seasons back when we played Wigan at Odsal

Quote ="Adeybull"Club is not appealing.'" www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2730 Looking at the contradictory edvidence the committee make, its that because Tomkins did not return it negates Raynors sending off (there was no need for him to return and he did not look concussed at the end of the match like Pie coach Mcguire the Liar insinuated!, fair enough then because of his recent record (The player has played 228 First Class games without ever being sent off. Does not have a reputation as a dirty player.) bans him for 2 matchs plus a fine. Raynor pleads guily to a careless tackle but the pillocks in the committee still say it was reckless! As far as the Club not appealing, I get the feeling there is politics again lurking in the background on this as usual with Sod Hall and its dealing with the Bulls!

Quote ="Adeybull"Club is not appealing.'" www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2730 Looking at the contradictory edvidence the committee make, its that because Tomkins did not return it negates Raynors sending off (there was no need for him to return and he did not look concussed at the end of the match like Pie coach Mcguire the Liar insinuated!, fair enough then because of his recent record (The player has played 228 First Class games without ever being sent off. Does not have a reputation as a dirty player.) bans him for 2 matchs plus a fine. Raynor pleads guily to a careless tackle but the pillocks in the committee still say it was reckless! As far as the Club not appealing, I get the feeling there is politics again lurking in the background on this as usual with Sod Hall and its dealing with the Bulls!

The argument that Tomkins did not return therefore negating the sending-off is bollox. The Pies had 13 men on the field, we had 12. That comment alone smacked of something strange to me.

Pretty well every objective observer I have seen has said (and that includes the RL hacks) that they felt the punishment was harsh.

As do I.

I have long believed things are not all they seem in the corridors of Rot Hall, and this episode has done nothing to change my belief.

I agree, and looking back of course it was Brent Webb who hit Ollie after he had scored and with enough time to pull out of his attempt to dislodge the ball/hit Ollies face, so no justification whatsoever for contact, whereas Raynor hit him before the grounding. one rule for Bradford, one for the rest.

What recent record does Raynor have other than a criminal one? I can't understand what record the commitee are refering to?

I am absolutely gob smacked that Raynor has been handed a further 2 game ban

As a neutral watching the game i thought that Raynor purely intended to dislodge the ball from Tomkin's hands, thus stopping him from scoring

I would have thought that Raynor had suffered enough punishment in being sent off and fined personally, but then again it was against the unpunishable Warriors was it not?

If it had been a front on tackle & Raynor, or whoever, had swung to hit across the chest, missed completely & knocked the attacker spark out, would 2 games be too much? He could equally claim he was trying to dislodge the ball.

TBH I can understand the ref decision to send raynor off, but would have thought sending off suficient can't understand a 2 game ban, and no appeal?!

But it wasn't. So it can't be judged as so. It can only be judged on what it was.

Or are you seriously suggesting that all tackles should be treated excatly the same - high tackle - 3 game ban - no need to consider the evidence?

Unpunishable Warriors?

Apart from that red card, Ganson HAMMERED us with penalties, and handovers when we should have had penalties, and make no mistake we've had our share of harsh bans.

As I've said previously, compare this incident with ones by Cunningham, Senior, Bailey, Leon Pryce... yes, in comparison the 2 match ban is harsh, but had it been a Wiganer committing the offence we'd have got the same punishment.

Now St Helens, on the other hand, can break the salary cap more times than any other team, yet not even get punished every time. Wigan and Bradford? Fines all round.

Break a player's eye socket by punching him in the face? Fine if you're Cunningham, not so good if you're Newton.

Like I said, I'm glad Raynor pleaded guilty, I expected him not to the way he shook his head when receiving the card. The red card was deserved, one match ban maybe, two matches a little harsh, but we should be used to this by now, right?

And Bradford's cap breach - and we only did one thing to "breach the cap" despite getting done for TWO years because we could not remedy year two by the time Rot hall had got round to determining year one - was because Harris' image rights (paid by an independent third party) were deemed to be part of his package. Yet e.g. Sculthorpe's, ditto, were not.

I agree totally with Fishta in that this thread should not in any way become a Wigan-knocking thread. Not that it should be a Saints-knocking one either - the real target lies elsewhere.

There are plenty of examples of why I would love to have been a fly on the wall at Rot Hall.

Don't even get me started on the "Spirit of the Cap" thing.



Like Noble said, seeing as we were getting punished for breaching the cap anyway, can we [ispend[/i the money we're being punished for spending but didn't?

We played a game a few weeks ago against a team where many of us felt it was very hard to see how the "spirit of the cap" was being upheld. Obviously though we were all wrong because no sanctions have been applied against that team. It sure is one curious beast, this "spirit of the cap" thing.

And we must have any number of occasions over the years where, seeing as we were punished by the vidref for a knock on anyway, can we perhaps actually knock the ball on a few times for those times we were punished for it when we didn't?

Bitter? Oh yes.

If every tackle is different, which it is, how can the RFL be consistent? The paranoid on here will drag up an expample of a Leeds or Saints player getting SoS but poor persecuted Bradford players get hammered. Where's the consistency? But a swinging fist, not aimed at the ball, knocking someone out is just that, whether a front on tackle or side on. If he was not red carded & banned every player commiting the offence can claim the same excuse safe in the knowledge they will get away with it. There will always be incidents where it is a complete accident & I have no problem with leniancy. Keith Senior using his legs for momentum to try & shake tacklers off him, a tactic you see several times in every game, & kicking Joel Tomkins in the face is an example. But that didn't stop several on this board calling for a life ban.

So Senior's case was a complete accident, whereas Raynor's was not? Even though the Disciplinary Committee judged that it WAS, and that he DID aim for the ball?

And Senior kicking out like that was not reckless, wheres Raynor swinging like that was?

I don't think you have done anything there other than help prove trhe case for the defence.

Not in a million years was raynor swinging for the ball, despite what the DC said, if that's what they said. Senior's actions weren't reckless, it is an action repeated in every game. As there were players lying over his upper body it was not possible for hime to be aware of where Tomkins was. If his vision hadn't been blocked & he could see Tomkins stood there it should have been a straight red.

If Raynor had aimed for Tomkins' head when he made the tackle he'd have ended up missing him entirely as by the time they connected Tomkins' head was where his arm/the ball had been. If he had put in a swing at his head and missed because Tomkins ducked, I would expect him to be banned even though he didn't actually hit him as that would have been clear intent.

When he starts the tackle Tomkins is upright, when they connect he's diving for the line. Thats why he hits him in the head.

Good to see that Tigs knows precisely what Raynor did and what his motives were, and the DC clearly did not. Maybe he needs to write to them and offer to join the panel, since their judgment -especially the bit "The committee are of the opinion that this incident was a case of the player going to save a try with his arm outstretched to knock the opponents arm or the ball" is so clearly in error?

Your previous post said ball, it never mentioned arm. Nice selective quoting. As I have said numerous times, I have never seen a player swing for a ball & miss by 2 feet. Similarly I have given Raynor the benefit of massive doubt & agreed he was aiming for the arm. Tomkins didn't duck, he completed the same try scoring manoevre virtually every player does when diving for the line. It is the defenders responsibility to accommodate that. Every first on defender is faced with a moving target & has to adjust his tackle to suit. All those on here who has played the game will have been in the same boat. I have been involved in thousands of tackles & can honestly say the only times I belted someone in the face was deliberate.