But Tomkins was diving. Theres an interesting quote from the RFL that says "you had his whole body to aim for" well not really, if Tomkins is diving over the line, what good is it aiming for is legs. Raynor does have a responsibility though to make sure he doesn't clout Tomkins round the head. I can understand why Ganson gave the red card. However i think Raynor has been judged on slow-motion (which always looks worse). We have to remember this was at an immense speed and if Raynor had been slightly lower, he would have hit Tomkins on the shoulder and probably saved a try.

The ban is ridiculous considering what some have got away with (punching after a player scored a try, headbutting a player on the ground). Raynor has an excellent record, pleaded guilty, also had a red card in the game, yet still got the maximum ban!!

Wasn't intentional selective quoting, just a post made in haste. I thought everyone was aware of the particulars of the DC ruling (and I only quoted an extract - the full text is below). I had previously posted that quote from the disciplinary, I thought on this thread but it may have been on the pieboard in response to the collective apoplexy over there.

Reading this ruling, especially the bit "players need to be aware of their responsibilities in terms of the safety of their opponents" I really fail to understand why we see other incidents which seem to meet the same criteria that escape punishment. And that includes smacking a player in the face while on top of him as he scored a try.

Just because every head shot by you was deliberate surely does not mean that that applies to every other player? After all, it was clearly not deemed to apply to Webb, where most observers believed they saw a very deliberate punch in the face?



Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction

The player has played 228 First Class games without ever being sent off. Does not have a reputation as a dirty player.

Aggravating Factors

Potential for serious injury

Mitigating Factors

(none given)

Reasons for Decision

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. The game of Rugby League is a high speed sport and players need to be aware of their responsibilities in terms of the safety of their opponents. The committee give the player credit for pleading guilty albeit to a careless strike, not reckless which the committee believe that this incident. The committee note that you missed a large majority of the game but your opponent also did not return to the game which negates this. Given your recent record the committee feel that the only possible outcome should be a 2 match suspension and a £300 fine.

I don't understand this particular part. While I appreciate the action "took out" Tomkins for the entire game, were they not allowed to bring on a sub? So in what way does that possibly negate someone being sent off and missing the entire game without being allowed a replacement?

If for whatever reason Wigan had played the rest of the game with 12 men, then yes it would be negated. But they didn't. While it was inconvenient for them and they were a sub down, it's hardly the same as only being allowed 12 on the park.

I still believe red card was correct (although not the ban), but I don't understand how they think the disadvantage was negated.

Exactly. It is total waknerage, and seems to me almost designed to divert attention away from the issue that he had effectively already served a ban of nearly a match AND in a situation where his team could not replace him. At best disingenuous, at worst deceitful. Unless the DC IS indeed totally thick?

And the offence is supposed to rank for a 1-2 match ban? So you read the wording of the findings, then you read the bit that says effectively "...because he is not a dirty player, because he has a good record, because he pleaded guilty, because he already missed much of a match and because we found it to be accidental, all of which you would expect to be mitigating factors, we are nevertheless going to levy the maximum punishment on him" - well I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. I drew mine some time ago, and well before this incident.

He was, and they did. The decision is now final, and your life will be better if you just accept it.




The actions were found to be careless, and Senior accepted that what he did was misconduct, but presumably you know better than the player who actually did it?

The Panel also found that an aggravating factor in Senior's case was the potential for serious injury.

Players do to varying extents kick out in the tackle but Senior's example was unusual both for the ferocity and height of the kicking out and that he was unfortunate to make a significant contact. In the same way Raynor was unfortuante to knock Tomkins out. The similarity is that had neither player made such a significant contact, I am surethe outcomes would have been different.


It was however possible for him to be aware that of the 2 possibilities:
1. the area around me is completely clear of players; OR
2. the area around me is almost certain to have one or more players coming in to tackle or guard offloads or go to marker
number 1 was remote, to say the least, and number 2 would very likely be the case. That is why, knowing there will very likely be players in the immediate vicinity, it is not on to lash out high with the legs in the way that Senior did.

As to which, the Panel commented: "We do not feel a suspension is appropriate in this respect but will mark this with a fine to serve notice to other players that this has the potential for serious injury."


You are confusing the submissions of the "prosecution" with the findings of the Panel, which i agree in that respect are, in the circumstances, weird as contact with anything other than ball/ball carrying arm was futile. . They found that:-



The remark that Tomkins missing the rest of the game somehow "negates" the part Raynor missed is very weird, and is it unique? I have certainly never heard of anything like that before. However Raynor does not have an excellent record, and what probably did for him as much as anything was his visit to the Disciplinary only a month earlier when after the Salford match he was up for a high tackle on Gibson and got a caution - the Panel said:


Add to that that he was up for a high tackle against Crusaders on 5th February (no charge, reasons:"Player makes initial contact with the ball, rides up to neck, penalty and running caution correct"icon_wink.gif; and a reckless high tackle in the Hull v Hudds match on 10/08/08 (first appearance before the Panel; 1 match ban) and I fail to see how you can say he has an excellent record, if I was on the Panel I don't see how you could ignore his head-contact previous. And they didn't.
"Given your recent record the committee feel that the only possible outcome should be a 2 match suspension and a £300 fine."

I would agree though that totally ignoring the fact he spent most of the game off the field, and 12 man Bradford got narrowly knocked out of a Cup competition, is unfair, as is the fact that (unless I am missing something) there was no evidence before them that the incident was what caused Tomkins to miss the rest of the game, when to most observers he seemed to be ready to come back on if needed relatively quickly.

But having said all that I predicted a 2 match ban and given his record I don't really see how a big issue can be made out of it, despite the weird bits and the unusual VR involvement.

Thanks for posting it, I had not seen it before, but to be honest I am not that bothered as I thought they got it about right, one match would have satisfied all but Bulls & Pies I think for opposite reasons. I am more bothered about countering hysterical accuations (not from you BTW, your's are non-hysterical) of referee bias & RFL conspiracy against the BUlls. You might be right, but I'll give a good argument in opposition.

I agree with that, he didn't do it properly and hit him in the head hence the (correct) red card. Its you saying he deliberately aimed at the head that I don't agree with. The guy has messed up a tackle at high speed and someone has got hurt.



That I didn't know and makes the punishment make alot more sense.

You missed out Tomkins going in with the knees after somebody scores a try

FA's raising of the previous incidents casts light on the decision that was not clear from the DC report.

I'd say that makes the difference between SOS and one match? Still think two matches was harsh compared with other incidents, and in no way detracts from the wierd logic.

Are they suggesting a "value" of a player to a team?

There is no doubt that Tomkins' quality makes him a highly "valuable" player to have on the team. If he is replaced by a player of lesser "value", then Wigan have been disadvantaged as a result of an opposing player's rule-breaking action.

I'd rather see more cards than the "On report" cop-out, purely for the reason that the team that has been the victim of unfair play doesn't get the advantage they should. If Raynor HADN'T been sent off, we'd still have got the try and goal, still have lost possibly our best player... yet have NO advantage whatsoever from it.

I'm choosing my words carefully here, because obviously there's incidents like O'Loughlin getting his leg twisted under Wilkin a few years back which was just as horrible to see, and whilst I'd love to have seen Wilkin get a million-match ban, I accept accidents happen, and it wasn't anyone's fault the tackle finished like it did. In comparison it was absolutely Raynor's fault that he clubbed Tomkins in the head, deliberate or not.

That, many assume, is why that Halifax thug went straight for Lynchy's head at the start of the previous round tie. He never missed either, so it was absolutely HIS fault that he smacked lynch in the head, deliberate or not.

And yet...that player remained on the field.

Well the "no charge" shouldn't count. Aisde from the Salford game you've had to go back another 3 years. Rugby League is a tough physical contact sport. Every single player in the game is guilty of producing a high shot eveyr now and then. The fact he's done it twice over 3 years is a very good record. Type in Joel Tomkins name and tell me Raynor still has a bad record.

Undoubtedly. They shouldn't take into account players' value as then you're entering the grey area of "opinion", but yes that's exactly what I assume is the case.

No doubt Wigan were disadvantaged by Tomkins not being able to continue. Another player had to replace him and finding someone to replace a talent like that is hardly going to be easy. Had Raynor stayed on the field, yes Wigan would have been disadvantaged and it would have been unfair, which is one of the reasons I agreed with the red card.

What I take issue with is the RFL seemingly suggesting that replacing a quality player with a "lesser" player (with no disrespect meant to the sub) is in some way equal to going down to 12 men for the rest of the game. Which it quite clearly isn't.

Not even when the replacement is Worrincy?

That's like going down to 10, never mind 12.

Then I don't agree with me either because I have never said that. £100 to you if can show that I did say, an apology from you if you can't? But don't let me stop the hysterical accusations continuing.

It was this I had in my head from earlier. You've also said several times that its not possible for somebody to accidently miss the ball by that amount in a tackle implying that to have landed where he did was intentional.

However having scanned back through the two threads you have also said several times you think he was aiming for the arm. For clarity then do you think he was aiming for the arm and missed or do you think he was aiming for the head intentionally?

And hysterical? Think I've been positively calm compared to most. Hell I've even defended Ganson twice which has left me feeling slightly dirty! Unless you meant you thought they were funny, in which case I'm glad to be keeping you amused.

Impossible to me that he was aiming for the head, but not the arm. However, having watched it numerous times it looks to me like he is aiming for the head & his initial reaction is not one of somebody who has made a catastrophic error. What saves him for me is that it is out of character on the pitch & given his recent problems he would be totally stupid to risk what remains of his career by potentially ending someone elses.

I didn't say he had a bad record, I was countering the suggestions that he was squeaky clean or had an excellent record. I respectfully suggest you're clutching at straws as what probably did for him most was the very recent headshot he was up for. They couldn't ignore that IMHO.

On the other hand I am finding these "valuable player" arguments increasingly bizarre. There has never been any instance that i know of where the value of the fouled player has been a relevant factor and nor should it be. I'd be of the view that every player deserves equal protection from the judiciary.

Moreover, this line of thinking is completely at odds with what has been the modern approach, which has been to put practically everything on report, so the disciplinary can have a look at it, and leave an even contest. I can see the argument that that advantages future opponents not the "victims", but right or wrong that is (or was) our current system.

Further, if we are going to delve into this sort of stuff, then what about Raynor's actions arguably costing the Bulls their place in the Cup? Doesn't that trump the key man factor, seeing as we lost?

And I still don't believe the VR has the authority to send players off. But as it's Bradford, we seem to make up the rules on the fly.

Think of the advantage to the current opponent as a side effect of penalising the offender and the prevalence of on report makes more sense. It's trying to make sure it penalises the offender correctly rather than advantage the opponents.

I agree that there needs to be consistency, but I'll disagree that future opponents are "advantaged"... they still have to play 17-on-17, whereas we would have been down to 16-on-17 (assuming no-one else was injured and out of the match at that point). Alright you might not have your first choice available through suspension, but unless you've got several other players suspended or injured, you might not even notice their absence, especially against bottom-end teams.

No offence intended on that last remark.

=#FFFFFFThis is just to let tigertot make a losing Deacon is an advantage" joke.
Listen, we used to have Deacon stretchered off every other week, as everyone knew he was our key man and so they twotted him mercilessly, always about the head. That's why it now looks like an Azerbaijani potato. Don't remember many being sent off for it, though.

After the beer wore off I felt a built guilty about what I said about this incident. 100% sending off if you strike a player in the head like that whether it's intentional (which it wasn't) or not. A player has the responsibility of challenging for the ball safety so it was a careless swinging arm.

The ban seems a bit steep to me though but they haven't appealed it so it's now in the past.

Notice that Lee Smith swung at Brett Hodgson's arm on Friday with an open hand missing by a similar distance. Presumably that looked to you like he was trying to slap him on the @rse?

Yeaman on Grix? No intent, like raynor, knocked him out, like raynor did..

Just thought I'd share that can of worms