<REMOVED>

In this one you can see the TJ running back (just his green sock) so he will have had a similar view to the other GIF. Obviously paying as much attention as they usually do. Also, if there was no intent, why the hell does he flick out his elbow in the final moment whilst it's making contact with the head?

<REMOVED>

In this one you can see the TJ running back (just his green sock) so he will have had a similar view to the other GIF. Obviously paying as much attention as they usually do. Also, if there was no intent, why the hell does he flick out his elbow in the final moment whilst it's making contact with the head?'"

As a Cas fan, on the at the game and later on TV it didn't look that bad. More of a firm shoulder to shoulder collision, however the above slow-mo doesn't make good viewing at all.

Grade C 2-3 matches.

Quote ="Highlander"There are lots of variables here. Previous Record - I'm not sure of his past record '" Here's his record. Haven't gone through it. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary?pl ... rch=search EDIT: Just realised that you can filter the results: www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary?pl ... rch=search Charged twice, guilty once, one match ban (reduced from 2 on appeal). No previous: Quote Player has played professionally for 7 years. Player has never been found guilty of an offence in front of a tribunal.'" That last clip is damning though IMO.

Quote ="Highlander"There are lots of variables here. Previous Record - I'm not sure of his past record '" Here's his record. Haven't gone through it. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary?pl ... rch=search EDIT: Just realised that you can filter the results: www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary?pl ... rch=search Charged twice, guilty once, one match ban (reduced from 2 on appeal). No previous: Quote Player has played professionally for 7 years. Player has never been found guilty of an offence in front of a tribunal.'" That last clip is damning though IMO.

Horrible, horrible, horrible. After the career threatening tackle that was put on him by Issac Luke, he should perhaps appreciate what a challenge like this could do.

Chase should be banned as long as the fev player is out for

I think that would be a good way of doing it.

Makes you ashamed to be British, eh?

Its the worst challenge since Cassidy did Morley in 1998, absoulutely disgusting, the worst bit is that after he does it he looks back at the Fev player with a smug face. Absoulute coward of the highest order. 6 games minimum, if I remember correctly Cassidy got 8.

I've already told you, he's got a grade C charge. 2-3 games.

I bet Ropati is fuming at that length!

Guideline is 2-3 games, can be adjusted up or down depending on mitigating or aggravating (previous, intent, injury to opposition player) circumstances.

He has to go to tribunal as he has already received a ban in the last 12 months (punching - 1 match on appeal). So no early guilty plea for him.

How that can only be one grade worse than Moa's accidental shoulder charge is frankly beyond me. I've just about given up on the Disciplinary Panel TBH.

EDIT: Hang on - I can't find him on the RFL site at all. Am I missing something?

the RFL website has the cases from fridays game listed now, 1 each from Wakey & Leeds, both no further action.

Assume Sat/Sun games to follow soon.

Confirmed on here:
[urlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/12/04/16/RUGBYL_Disciplinary.html&BID=480[/url

Have to agree with you, critical of Moa as I was it's not in the same class as that - at least Moa had the decency to look apologetic.

Pathetic.

Poor decision that.

What a joke

Having a quick look at the guidelines he could actually get more than 3 games. A couple of snippets.....

− Player has record of the same or a similar offence in the past - should result in a higher
penalty than would otherwise be the case.

− If the Misconduct has caused injury to an opponent, this may result in a higher penalty than if
no injury had occurred.
− Panels may consider the length of time an injured opponent is likely to be out of the game
when passing sentence.

I wonder if a tribunal has ever stepped outside guidance before - and would this be a case they might consider it?

Players and Clubs should be aware that the normal suspension ranges are guidelines only and the Tribunal has the discretion to step outside of the normal ranges in the following three circumstances:
- If the Compliance Manager has advised the Player that, in the light of specified aggravating factors, she is going to seek a higher sanction and the Tribunal agree that such factors mean a higher sanction should be imposed;
- If the Tribunal has previously advised the Player that it will apply a higher sanction next time that Player is found to have committed a misconduct Offence; or
Sentencing Guidelines January 2010 Page 9 of 10
- If the Tribunal feels that in the light of the aggravating and mitigating factors present it is appropriate to step outside of the normal suspension range (irrespective of whether this has been requested by the Compliance Manager

Disgusting. But nothing the RFL do suprises me anymore. Spineless gits.

Are the decisions to cite, and the reviewing pannel the same people? If so, I very much doubt they'll step outside the guidelines. Even if its different set of people I'd be very suprised if they wanted to stick their heads above the parapet, even where it is obvious the level of sanction set is farcical.

The disciplinary seems to run like a lottery.
I'm as big a fan of Sinfield as you'll find on these boards but I reckon he's very lucky to get away with NFA after kicking out in the tackle...neither the officials nor the DVD managed to see any 'conclusive evidence'.

That's what galls me about the leniency of Chase's charge. There's nothing inconclusive about the evidence there.

The intention was clear and the result is horrendous for Ropati...but not for Chase. Shameful all round IMO.