Which doesn't make sense, or are you trying to say in a weird round about way that I would be clamoring for Ropati to end up in Jail?

Well, here's a hint for you: I didn't ask for Gilmour to go to jail when he made Joe Westerman have a seizure, which is far worse than a broken jaw, so you will find that answer to be no, I wouldn't have been saying Ropati should face criminal charges.

It doesn't matter who a player plays for, it's part of the game, injuries happen.

Now I'll leave you and your Hull/Leeds troll friends to continue your obsession with me, seems you don't want to accept the fact the RFL have deemed the challenge reckless, like you were told it was. Goodbye.



Why would I do work for free when I could just wait for someone to come up with an actual claim and get my fees for it?

Give over you tart!

His use of the elbow was a disgrace, a player has a broken jaw ffs!! The only reason he got 3 matches is because of who he is and the RFL are a set of spineless morons!! had another player tackled Chase like that and caused such injuries you would be on hear screaming and throwing a paddy, very similar to your constant threads on your board about FC fans causing trouble at your place, following week KR fans at your place causing trouble, and feck me a week later the Wakey fans causing trouble! Your biased is quite frankly embarrassing!

Libellous. Steady on now, there's a legal expert on this thread and he'll sue you at the drop of a hat if you're not careful.

Aww dont leave Gronk watching you embarass yourself is such fun.

So will you be sending this mythical case to Rangi?
Surely you will I mean what with you being 15-3 sure that it will win the fees are already nailed on arn't they?
Unless of course you were infact talking codswallop.

Do you [size=150Marfa Manu[/size swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

What message are the Rugby League sending out to all the parents of Children playing the game ------your sons and daughters can get maimed in our sports and we will only punish the offender with 3 weeks not playing .......absoulte disgrace.

I personally wont encourage any of the children in my family to take up the sport if this is how they treat and punish the victim and the perputrator

Through all the pages of drivel that's been posted I've not once seen Gronk comment on the "look how big a man I am" stare that Chase gave to Ropati immediately after the tackle, if that wasn't the biggest sign of showing the whole incident was intended to cause injury I don't know what is. 3 games is an absolute joke and he's got away unbelievabley lightly.

For those that are saying "chase should be out for as long as Tangi is out for" well let's say Chase put the very same hit on someone and that someone's jaw didn't break and he was ok to play next week, would that make it ok for Chase not to be banned?


End of the day, 3 match ban let's move on. It's a nice script set for the magic weekend for the badman Chase to return and do what he does best against a team who he often tears apart.

Chase, chase will tear you apart again.

I havent read the 40 odd pages so apologies if this point has been raised already.

Surely the question to Rangi that should be raised relates to his tackling technique here?

If an opponent is running at you, any attempted tackle would be an extended arm?

This tackle was made by Rangi's arm folded, then raised in what appears to be intent for actual bodily harm.

If that style of tackling is being coached, it needs to be stamped out forthwith.

Judging by the RFL guidelines Chase has being given the maximum ban for a Grade C offence, however, the guideline are a bit ambiguous.

Strikes
1. A-C Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – reckless
2. C-D Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – intentional
4. B-C Strikes with elbow – dropping on player
5. B-C Strikes with elbow – ball carrier – reckless
6. C-F Strikes with elbow – ball carrier – intentional
7. C-E Strikes with elbow – tackling – reckless
8. D-F Strikes with elbow – tackling – intentional

I presume he has fallen into Category No. 1 which is classed as reckless, whereas the major consensus is that it was intentional. So, whoever has viewed the incident sees it in a different light to the majority view on here.

I, like everyone else (except for the Cas fans) thought it was an intentional act, but even that could end up with a Grade C on Category No. 2, maybe the adjudication went for that, or even a Grade C on Category No. 7- confused, you bet yah.






Yep, he’s done a great job in tearing apart another players jaw, and livelihood

.

If Chase raised the elbow and the players jaw didn't break then he's extremely lucky to get away without any harm.

Tangi Ropati can't move on at the moment - he can barely talk!

'Kinel, that's horrific.

Yes, and I'm sure Tangi Ropati will enjoy that return - perhaps he'll watch the game whilst enjoying a nice liquid lunch with his mates, since he'll still be taking all his meals through a straw by then?

This outcome is an absolute disgrace - it sends out a simply stunning message about how little the RFL values it's lower tier players and suggests that the urban myths about super-duper league might just be true; it would seem that we can attempt to maim players from outside it, without fear of anything more than a short rest from the game.

I'm totally baffled by this, given that we're talking about a player who was banned for striking a few weeks ago and has previous for using a similar 'mis-timed' technique on a bloke outside a pub in his home country.

Good old Wakefield manipulation. Chase was banned for striking a few weeks ago was he? Nope, Chase was most recently banned in July 2011. We're now April 2012.

As for the incident back home, that was in 2009, before his time with Cas, not rugby related. It's not at all relevant is it.

Plus how can a Wakefield fan preach about off the field behaviour of players when you have Ben Cockayne in your team, quite easy to get footage up of him kicking someone on the floor, which is, to be said, as low as it gets.

I know BC wasn't with Wakefield then but people in glass houses....

I meant cited, which he was, for an incident of striking in the Hull FC match a few weeks ago.

As for the rest - it speaks to his character and temperament and if a WTW player was involved in something like this on the pitch, I'd be advocating just as vociferously that his previous conduct, if it was relevant, should be taken into account.

3 matches is a complete joke - it's shameful in fact. Bad times.

Breaking my jaw was a blessing in disguise. I lost about a stone. In all seriousness it should have been more than 3 games. 5 would have been appropriate in my view.

Rangi Chase is the worst player to win Man of Steel in my lifetime. Complete overrated house.

^^^ This post, if any is a clear reason why this board needs a "Like" button

What i want to know why a few weeks earlier a hunslet old boys player was given a 5 match ban for pretty much the same type of challenge which resulted in a facial injury and chase was only given 3? Is it because hes a super league player and current england star? Also imo both players should have been given longer bans. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3491

What i want to know why a few weeks earlier a hunslet old boys player was given a 5 match ban for pretty much the same type of challenge which resulted in a facial injury and chase was only given 3? Is it because hes a super league player and current england star? Also imo both players should have been given longer bans. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3491

This is a very good point. Both my lads play, and tbh it's a worry - and it's more of a worry the older they get. When my 13 yr old plays now I find myself closing my eyes more and more. The kids are taught a lot of respect at junior level, but what a contradiction eh at Pro level.

More relevantly, I wonder how many he would have received had he not been in contention for an England spot...

Quote ="Mr Neutral"What i want to know why a few weeks earlier a hunslet old boys player was given a 5 match ban for pretty much the same type of challenge which resulted in a facial injury and chase was only given 3? [uIs it because hes a super league player and current england star?[/u Also imo both players should have been given longer bans. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3491'" In short yes... I know a bloke in amateur who got 6 months for pretty much the same tackle.

Quote ="Mr Neutral"What i want to know why a few weeks earlier a hunslet old boys player was given a 5 match ban for pretty much the same type of challenge which resulted in a facial injury and chase was only given 3? [uIs it because hes a super league player and current england star?[/u Also imo both players should have been given longer bans. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3491'" In short yes... I know a bloke in amateur who got 6 months for pretty much the same tackle.

He won't if someone puts a RECKLESS challenge on him. Lets see all the Cas apologists turn up then.

IMO the RFL have acted a bit like the CPS in criminal cases here. They've gone for the highest available grading that they think they can prove conclusively from the evidence they've got.

They could have tried to prove it was deliberate, which is difficult without being inside the head of the player at the time. They could have tried to prove it was with the elbow rather than the forearm, but did they have sufficient video evidence to do that (aren't all offences judged by the DVDs provided by the clubs, in order to ensure that TV games don't get treated unfairly?).

Rather than going with a prosecution for murder, they've taken the manslaughter route because it's easier to prove.

You do wonder why Newton's hit on Long got him 7 games though and this was only deemed worthy of 3.

Quote ="Mr Neutral"What i want to know why a few weeks earlier a hunslet old boys player was given a 5 match ban for pretty much the same type of challenge which resulted in a facial injury and chase was only given 3? Is it because hes a super league player and current england star? Also imo both players should have been given longer bans. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3491'" It's because the RFL deemed the first offence to be intentional, but (despite IMO some pretty damning video evidence) deemed Chase's tackle to be merely 'reckless'. Like I said earlier, they and some of the more vocal Cas partisans appear to virtually the only people to believe that there was no intent. I can understand lower league fans' frustrations here. It must look pretty conspiratorial to some.

Quote ="Mr Neutral"What i want to know why a few weeks earlier a hunslet old boys player was given a 5 match ban for pretty much the same type of challenge which resulted in a facial injury and chase was only given 3? Is it because hes a super league player and current england star? Also imo both players should have been given longer bans. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3491'" It's because the RFL deemed the first offence to be intentional, but (despite IMO some pretty damning video evidence) deemed Chase's tackle to be merely 'reckless'. Like I said earlier, they and some of the more vocal Cas partisans appear to virtually the only people to believe that there was no intent. I can understand lower league fans' frustrations here. It must look pretty conspiratorial to some.