By your interpretation that means the RFL based their decision on premonition.

It does not matter the circumstances at the point when 14 men were fielded, the RFL cannot see the future. Cas may have gone on to win, but equally they may not have. It matters not how likely those circumstances are, the mere fact that human beings do not know the outcome of the future means that you cannot base a decision on what may have happened.

Does that seem fair to you?

It makes very little odds to Salford in the long run as there's nothing to play for anyway. But to say justice has been done when someone made a mistake and the RFL base a decision on mystic Meg is sloppy to say the least.

Maybe you need to get out more?

It will be interesting to what punishment Hull FC receive for fielding 14 players for a brief period...

'Get you're facts right', eh? what facts are these then and what's the highlighted got do with anything he said. His point is that high tackles sometimes go unpunished, like what happened to Cockayne the other day, it happens all the time.

Lol

I can see your neck veins



90 percent sure Tansey took an early guilty plea that's why he wasn't banned HTH

I take the 2 points off them for next season, that will damage their chances to finish in the top 12.

Can't see that happening to be honest - wasn't it big Nige who brought the good Dr into SL in the first place - plane ride to Dubai? Quite a few pundits think along the same lines as yourself though - that he will jack-in if he doesn't get his own way so you could be right.

Regarding the Tansey incedent. When he faced the disciplinary he took the early guilty plee - thats why he didn't get a ban. The ref didn't spot the high tackle - just the same as he didn't spot your 14th man. Consistent.

This comes close to the heart of why I think this is a very poor decision by the RFL. Although some Castleford fans have had their tummies tickled and can sleep safe in their beds knowing justice has prevailed, the RFL has set a very dangerous precedent by deducting points on the basis of what [imight[/i have happened (i.e. Castleford [imight[/i have scored in one of the three plays that took place while Salford had 14 players on the field).

For me, the problem is one of "where does it end?" In recent times, I've seen Salford lose to a team whose best player on the day tested positive after the match for a recreational drug that, you could argue, acted as a stimulant (I'm sure you can work out who that was). I've seen us lose to another team where one player scored two tries, one of which saw him bulldoze through the Salford defence close to the line, only to find a few weeks later he was on steroids. In these cases - particularly the second one - there is, for me, more compelling evidence that the actions of the players involved led to Salford losing the match than there is evidence that Salford's actions against Castleford led to Castleford losing. In neither case did the clubs involved lose points. Now, should an incident like one of these happen again, surely the RFL would, for consistency, be expected to deduct points. But would they, or would they buckle under the pressure? It gets difficult because other teams that had lost to the offending team could argue that the points won in their games should be deducted too. So, I suspect the RFL would buckle, leaving them open to accusations of inconsistency and incompetence. You can apply a similar argument to salary cap breaches too.

Surely the CEO should be trying to avoid situations like this, not diving headfirst into them. I get the feeling that the points deduction wouldn't have happened had Richard Lewis still been there, because he was smart enough to see where that road led to.

I think the comparison with players who have taken performance enhancing drugs is interesting, however it is flawed for one major reason - it is not the club's responsibility to ensure that the players are not taking them, but rather the player's responsibility. It is therefore the player who rightly faces any punishment. However, it is the club's responsibility to ensure they follow operational rules (ie playing with the correct number of players), and therefore the club who rightly faces any punishment.
In this case, I can't really believe Salford appealed. Precedents had not really been set as the offences have been very different. Saints had 14 men on the field but the replacement player did not become involved in play before the error was noticed and action taken to put it right. In Salford's case, the replacement player was directly involved in making tackles and the club failed to notice the error for a much longer period of time. Therefore the punishment was more severe even though the same offence was committed, as is normal in other walks of life (eg the punishment will be more severe for a drunk driver who causes injury to others than it would be for someone who causes no injury, even though they have technically committed the same offence).
To be honest, I am very surprised Salford appealed the initial judgement. The longer that Koukash continues to spout off and complain, the more the RFL and other clubs are going to turn against him.

I don't agree. Salford ended up with 14 players on the field not as a result of something [ithe club[/i had done (i.e. to the best of our knowledge, no-one at the club decided to field 14 players), but because one player entered the field before the player he was replacing had left it. It was the fault of the players involved and, in fact, I believe Sean Long - who, in this case, you could see as a 'representative' of the club - was behind play desperately trying to get the player being substituted off the field.

And even if you still don't agree, there's still the problem of salary cap breaches, which [iare[/i the responsibility of the club. Salford are docked two points for having 14 players on the field for three plays where there is no conclusive proof that it prevented Castleford scoring, so what should a proportionate punishment be for a club that spends an [ientire season[/i employing a squad of players that, by the laws of the game, it shouldn't have been able to employ? Surely, it should be [iall[/i competition points removed. I just don't think the RFL would dare do that to a Wigan or a Leeds.

Why though? What have Salford done to upset you so much that you would like us to start next season on -2 and not finish in the 12?

An attitude you'd normally see a football fan have towards other clubs, not RL. Unjustified desire to see another club fail.

Amazingly the RFL have decided that Salford having an extra man on for 30 seconds is more serious than when Saints broke the salary cap and were fined, and an equal punishment to Bradford going over the cap 2 years in a row and getting a measly two point deduction on both occasions.

But Bradford and Saint's salary cap breaks were down to technicalities in the old salary cap system with regards to 3rd party payments and how they impact the cap not being made clear enough. Were as the rule about having only 13 players on the field is pretty clear cut.

If anyone should be upset about the similar punishments it should be Saints and Bradford for having too harsh a punishment.

Although I don't think it was done intentionally, it is ultimately the club's responsibility to ensure that they don't break operational rules and they failed to do this. The Salford pitch-side coaches hold this responsibility and should not have allowed one player to enter the field whilst it was clear the player he was replacing was obviously not leaving the field. Substitutions are simple enough to do correctly - you only have to be able to ensure that before a player enters the field another one has departed, or is in the process of doing so if the change is made during a break in play. There is really no excuse for getting in wrong, particularly for the length of time Salford left both players on the field.
I agree that a breach of salary cap should result in the loss of all competition points though.

In Saints case it was an unusual one and was partly down to Roby and his contract clause over International recognition. The RFL selected him for international duty which triggered an increase in Salary, the club didn,t inform the RFL on the technicality and you could say the club were fined for providing an international player.

the only reason Salford got 2 points off was due to London's bad results. the RL do not want there team to finish bottom

The RFL don't own London, nor do they provide them with "mythical" financial support....in fact, London are constantly hamstrung by the RFL's refusal to allow an additional 20% weighting on the London Salary cap to allow for the well documented increased cost of living in the Capital.

I therefore fail to see how London could be described as "their" team....but as you're trolling, I suppose facts don't really matter to you!

Welcome to franchising, enjoy

Correct, the RFL are against London because they refuse to let them cheat.

London should be allowed to play with 15 players, double the cap and be awarded a trophy every year because they aren't in the heartlands.

Correct. But do we expect the RFL to get anything right first time?

it was actually the mid-season friendly versus NZ, that was arranged after the start of the season and all contracts were already in place. There really wasn't anything that the club could have done to avoid it, other than pulling the players out of the international squad.

You're a bit wide of the mark here.
London "weighting" is pretty common across all types of business, due to the increased cost of living, especially housing.
You can buy a whole street in Cas for the price of a small property in London, so of course players would need to be paid more, to cover the higher cost of living.

So by that token we should give London a higher slice of tv money too ??? And sponsorship money ??? London know the rules of the comp and should have to abide by them same as any other club.

Your reasoning is the same as saying Cas should be given more money from the RFL because we find it hard to attract the quality of player Wire or Wigan do so we need to pay them more.