as i have said previously there is no intent it is just poor technique, which needs to be drilled out of him now before it becomes a habbit. At the end of the day he is only 18 and young enough to learn and i am sure he will gain more out of being punished for it than just letting it slide.

Whatever.....

This is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on here.

Have a word with yourself mate!!!
The difference is clear...bateman was completing a tackle( I agree it "could" have been worse than it actually was )..But Chris Bridge Intentionally struck an opposing player with the elbow, 1 game ban to batemans 3 games...Joke!!!

The judiciary is rightly taking into account the potential seriousness of the injury. If you forearm smash someone in the face as they're running, its virtually impossible to break their neck (as some have bizarrely suggested). You also can't break someone's neck by whacking them in the face with a forearm when they're lying on the ground.

What CAN break someone's neck is landing on their head from even a relatively low height with their bodyweight behind it, or having someone else land on their head to the same effect. The bodyweight makes all the difference to the force applied, combined with the direction of the impact.

I thought Bridge struck the ball.

Interesteing to see if McIlorum gets a three match ban for his tackle lat night. Didn't look any different to Batemans.

Though exactly the same. Also seems the grapple tackle was legal last night.

Disciplinary after the London match:



that's 2 out of 3 "no charges" in the last couple of weeks for this one, based on nothing else than the same phrase "makes room for opponent's head".

So you CAN make "dangerous contact" yet not even be charged. Increasingly weird.

You're expecting consistency out of the RFL Disciplinary Committee?


Silly boy!

It's also OK if your opponent manages to escape the crusher. Seemingly, you can apply this illegal hold, and put the tackled player in a dangerous position, and not make room for his head, yet STILL not be charged, if after a period of time he manages to escape it.



What is the period of time? I think we should be told.

In fact, it seems to be open season when it comes to dangerous play on a Bull.

Meanwhile, elsewhere, the luck of the fall applioes:

And McIllorum? not even charged?

Just highlights the inconsistency of it all.

Oh and Ablett gets a warning for eye gouging.

Excellent work.

I would guess the obvious difference is that in the other crusher incidents none of the tacklers dropped their entire body weight on the ball carriers head/kneck.
I would be quite happy for the massively overrated McIlorum be sine die just for the smug way he goes about his very average business, but I can't say I noticed it during the game, if anyone can post a video link I would be interested.

The RFL need to recognise that many incidents don't fall into consistent and convenient categories. If anything, this is the problem with the current system - predetermined categories of offence with punishments that do not always fit the severity of the crime. Thus the likes of Chase seemingly get away with murder, whereas the treatment of Bateman seems heavy-handed. More flexibility needs to be introduced - at present the RFL are hiding behind an overly rigid set of guidelines which give only the impression of fairness.

I also think that the rules for high tackles and tackling a player in the air need to be looked at. At the moment a mere touch while a player is in the air or glancing contact above the shoulder is enough to result in a penalty, which ruins the spectacle and seems to run contrary to the otherwise physical nature of the game. At the same time there is still plenty of nasty facial stuff going on in the tackle that still isn't being cleaned up.

Where ARE these predetermined categories? Has anybody got a link to them?

Go to the RFL - disciplinary - on the right is 2010 on-field compliance sentencing guidelines (pdf)

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/On%20Field%20Compliance%20Sentencing%20Guidelines%202010%20-%20Final.pdfGuidelines[/url

Oh, I've been. I go there regularly. I think you miss my point.

In Bateman's case the details of charge were:



That reads like a quote from the relevant part of a rule, regulation, sentencing guideline or some such other. But that wording does not exist anywhere that I have so far found. And it does not exist in those guidelines.

15.1(i) simply states:
"Behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game"

My long-standing puzzlement is exactly where does the above wording come from? Unless somebody knows, then I conclude it has been made up.

It's a quirky system of assessment that deems Rangi Chase deliberately aiming at the jaw of an opponent (with clearly one primary outcome likely) to be a four match ban and Batemans over zealous, stupid neck grapple to be 3. Both for me were at least 6 matches in their relevant contexts. Chase's tackle however was absolutely disgraceful. Had Ryan Bailey, Lima or Josh Perry done something similar, 8 matches plus would be a foregone.

Having a category for charges is one thing, but it is even more clear every incident has a context and given that, Chase's jaw attack - and that exactly what it was, should have been punished with greater severity. I don't care how good he is or his record. Unacceptable.

Bateman meanwhile, similarly needs to get a grip and find the balance between controlled aggression and absolute stupidity.

I would agree with all of that, except if Chase was deliberate it should have been >8 matches, rest of season would have been justice, but I assume the RFL deemed it not deliberate, just careless/dangerous. As I have said before, possibly the RFL did not have the nerve to judge it deliberate because of the consequences of that decision.

Dont you think that will come with a litle thing called experience? for an 18 year old kid to step up to the best super league have to offer and stand toe to toe with them and prove he wont take a backward step is briliant in my view, he may get a tad over excited but the kid is living his dream of playing for the club he loves, to say he needs to get a grip at 18 year ols in my eyes is a joke if he is still doing things like this in 3-4 years maybe but not now

Neither Bailey nor Lima nor Perry are the current man of steel wanted by Mcnamara for the exiles matches.

Disclaimer: not that I am suggesting that had any influence over the disciplinary decision. I simply wouldn't say such a thing. Definitely nothing to do with the statement above I am merely point out that they aren't the current man of steel and wanted by Steve McNamara for the exiles matches. No link between the two. Nothin to do with it. The disciplinary made their decision based on the evidence, criteria and using their own judgement nothing else. Definitely nothign to with what I said. Oh no that's clear.

Yeah people are getting a bit carried away with this. The lad'll be right don't worry about that.