[urlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/09/02/16/RUGBYL_Hull_KR.html[/url

Hope he doesn't get away with it. We were right in line with him when he raised his elbow to Morrison's chin in the tackle.

It doesn't make any difference to us now does it? Hope he gets let off then KR can have their strongest team to play Leeds.

I know where you're coming from. Should have walked for it, vert nasty.

one match ban according to sportinglife

Obviously you were seeing things

The disciplinary committee see video footage of an incident - not one snapshot that proves nothing. Where was Walker's elbow just before that shot was taken?

Well seeing as though this snapshot can't be that long after i think its safe to decipher that there is no intent or malice.

Firstly Chevs eyes are shut and the arm and elbow are pointing down not up. To be banned for that after peacock got off with throwing 5-6 punches a week earlier is a disgrace

His charge was "striking - raised forearm whilst carrying the ball"; intent or malice would likely have made it a 4-match ban. He got the minimum 1-match.

I'm not surprised about (GB captain) Peacock, though he was sin-binned. Standing in the game seems to come into it, unfortunately. I see that Ryan Bailey is to be sent a warning letter for "Raised forearm/elbow carrying the ball". He can add that to his collection of warning letters he got last year.

So what is the difference between the two?

Don't know - one plays for Leeds?

How do you know it can't be that long? Only a video replay would tell the whole story, you don't appear to have seen that so your evidence is patchy.

So he commits the offence against us, then is banned for one match, thus weakening the team for their match against our rivals.
Its a good system this.

KR to appeal according to this: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 895816.stm It seems unfair that Bailey got a letter, and Walker a ban. Don't tell me that the RFL are being inconsistent....

KR to appeal according to this: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 895816.stm It seems unfair that Bailey got a letter, and Walker a ban. Don't tell me that the RFL are being inconsistent....

After isn't the same as during, and during isn't the same as the incident. You can only do this stuff by moving images, not stills.

Quote ="debaser"KR to appeal according to this: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 895816.stm It seems unfair that Bailey got a letter, and Walker a ban. Don't tell me that the RFL are being inconsistent....'" why exactly? I've seen the Bailey incident and Bailey did not deliberately raise his arm and lead into the challenge. With the difference in height and running style and position of ball under his arm there was no malice. But yet again as its Bailey you all start blowing. As for chev Quote On review of the incident the match review panel believed that the Player had raised his forearm whilst in possession of the ball, striking the Bradford player attempting to tackle him. The MRP was concerned that the player had promoted the forearm in a dangerous manner, that the forearm connected with the chin or jaw of the Bradford player, and that the use of the forearm in this manner had some potential for injury. '" to me that would suggest he deliberately raised his forearm. i really wish people would take off their rose tinted glasses, it gets ever so tiring

Quote ="debaser"KR to appeal according to this: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 895816.stm It seems unfair that Bailey got a letter, and Walker a ban. Don't tell me that the RFL are being inconsistent....'" why exactly? I've seen the Bailey incident and Bailey did not deliberately raise his arm and lead into the challenge. With the difference in height and running style and position of ball under his arm there was no malice. But yet again as its Bailey you all start blowing. As for chev Quote On review of the incident the match review panel believed that the Player had raised his forearm whilst in possession of the ball, striking the Bradford player attempting to tackle him. The MRP was concerned that the player had promoted the forearm in a dangerous manner, that the forearm connected with the chin or jaw of the Bradford player, and that the use of the forearm in this manner had some potential for injury. '" to me that would suggest he deliberately raised his forearm. i really wish people would take off their rose tinted glasses, it gets ever so tiring

As the people above have already said one frame doesn't tell the whole story. This is obviously taken a fraction of a second after the incident. In my opinion he went into the tackle with the intent of raising the elbow. This could have easily resulted in a broken jaw.

Is that someone with sense? I would hazard a guess that about 70% of the people commenting on the Bailey incidnet haven't seen it. But as soon as some of you see Ryan Bailey- raised forearm, that's it he must be quilty.

But hey let's not allow reasoning to get in the way of a good argument eh?

Whats reasoning got to do with anything? This is the RLFans board isn't it? Thought we had to leave all reasoning at the door.



But yes Bailey+raised forearm=guilty. Definately.

Quote ="debaser"KR to appeal according to this: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 895816.stm It seems unfair that Bailey got a letter, and Walker a ban. Don't tell me that the RFL are being inconsistent....'" 1 match ban upheld; [urlhttp://www.superleague.co.uk/article.php?id=13107[/url

Quote ="debaser"KR to appeal according to this: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 895816.stm It seems unfair that Bailey got a letter, and Walker a ban. Don't tell me that the RFL are being inconsistent....'" 1 match ban upheld; [urlhttp://www.superleague.co.uk/article.php?id=13107[/url

How would you want the system to be like then?

I've no idea really. Just moaning.



How about the team against who the offence was committed gets to choose which games the offendee misses? How would that work?

Match ban to be served next time teams meet?

It is strange that an incident that occurs against a team does not benefit said team when punishment is given out.

I thought that too. But what about 3, 4 match bans? That could last for several seasons.
I've always had a major gripe though with bans given while playing for the international side been served when playing for the club side.