Quote ="rover49"Saw it on the Sky Sports banner last night and my immediate reaction was 'you have got to be f****** joking', this shows the RFL up for the spineless idiots they are. How can they justify a one match ban in ANY circumstance for such an act of cowardice and thuggery, never mind one that will be covered by a meaningless match against a pub side.
This was a blatant punch against a defenseless player in our showpiece event watched by hundreds of thousands of RL and other sports fans worldwide, what message does it send out to the kids in our sport.
Shame on the RFL for not treating this for what it actually was.'"
This is what Westwood said to the disciplinary:
Quote ... it was a big occasion being the Grand Final. The atmosphere was intense with arms and legs everywhere. The player states that he received an elbow which he states was not deliberate from his opponent. The player then wanted to let him know he was there and went in hard but not deliberately. The player states was devastated when he saw on the screen the replays where he had caught his opponent as he never intended to do anything deliberate to hurt his opponent.'"
The disciplinary decided that:
Quote the DVD is clear that the player has struck his opponent with a punch. The committee accept this was not a deliberate attack to the head. The committee give the player credit for his guilty plea and show of remorse in this incident and accept it was a highly charged atmosphere in a big game. The player does not have a bad disciplinary record for this type of incident and the committee feel that a 1 match suspension and a £300 fine is appropriate in this instance.'"
So there is no doubt that
a) there was a punch and
b) it connected with the head
but Westwood stated that he did not intend to punch him in the head. As the discipljnary, having heard all the facts in detail during the course of the hearing, made a finding on the evidence they saw and heard that
it was not a deliberate attack to the head then the sentence seems about right.
Your problem is that you do not believe there should be a disciplinary process. You think this because although a lot of people are involved in the process, including differently constituted disciplinary panels, you dismiss the lot of them as "spineless idiots". You, and presumably only anyone who accepts your diktat, alone are able to see the truth.
The "spineless idiots" (L Hull chairman, ex-Fulham, Wigan and Leigh player Russ Bridge and ex-Salford and Bradford player Nathan McAvoy) who gave Westwood a 1 match ban had a basic choice of 1 or 2 games. They were not involved in the charging process. That would be the "spineless idiots" on the Match Review Panel. As Westwood was said not to have a bad record for offences of this type, had pleaded guilty, shown remorse, and denied a specific intent to attack the head, which was accepted, then a 2 match ban would have been disproportionate, unfair, and almost certain to be reduced on appeal. It sounds to me like the Panel acted in a perfectly reasonable manner. And, perhaps more to the point, entirely correctly within the 2103 Sentencing Guidelines.
What any reasonable person would say is that given a basic choice of 1 match or 2, you can hardly have any substantial beef with the result. Sadly for you, execution by firing squad was not an option. However very clearly you CAN justify a 1 match ban, given that that is precisely within the range of penalties for the offence charged, before the incident ever happened. That penalty for that charge has been in place a long time. Odd how you haven't whinged about it before.
