Surely this sort of decision should be a 'policy' based one.

Facials...

... are definitely part and parcel of the game, but we have to be careful that if a player crosses that line recklessly then he should be punished.

What would have happened IF Ablett had injured Manu in this incident; I understand that he didn't and it's ifs and buts, but have you got to blind/severely injure someone to get a ban?

wow... words fail me. How can he get a warning?
Disgusting from the RFL.

It would appear so.

I would also propose that should such an incident occur, that resulted in a career-ending injury, the lax disciplinary procedures at the RFL could possibly bring them into the frame when it came to litigation

Gaz Hock gets a 5 match ban (I think) for doing something similar, wonder if he feels agrieved by the RFL?

The difference in judgement between Hocks and Abletts was that whilst Hocks was judged to be a deliberate gouge (and lets be fair, it was as clear as it was ever going to be) Abletts was judged more of a wild grab from a prone player. There was a clear difference imo between the two offences.

Saying that, i think we need it (like a lot of things in the game im afraid) that there is a duty of care to other players in the game and the onus is on each player to not make it any more dangerous than it is.

Relative to Hocks (and not forgetting Hocks disaster of a disciplinary record which will have been taken into account when judging his ban) I can see why Ablett hasnt got a ban. As a personal preference I would have wanted to see a much bigger ban for Hock and a small ban for Ablett

Just an awful decision. If one played gets a 5 game ban for it then so should another. Disgusting policy from the RFL. Ablett got away with a disgusting hit on Tomkins in 2010 as well, he should have been sent off at the very least!

Hock's was not judged to be a deliberate gouge. Also, his disciplinary record would not count against him. Only incidents of a similar nature are considered as major aggravating factors. Other incidents of foul play are occasionally considered if they are frequent but Hock's ban for making contact with the match official didn't count against him as it's a separate type of offence.
Hock had only been banned once (for one game) for any sort of foul play or violent conduct up until that point so his record wouldn't have counted against him. If I'm not mistaken Ablett had 3 matches for elbowing Tomkins and another 1 match ban for a dangerous tackle so the disciplinary records had no bearing.

Why should Ablett have been sent off for a mistimed challenge when running at full speed chasing a bomb. The worst challenge of the 2010 season bar none was Ratboys brother, ASBO Joel trying to smash a prone Richie Mylers cheekbone as he lay on the floor. Absolutely disgraceful and premeditated yet worthy of just a warning from the RFL. Short and selective memories you pie eaters.

So where was Tomkins 3 match ban for a deliberate push on the referee before confronting him to berate him about 'getting in the way'

you cant have it both ways!

He never laid a hand on him. Stop making **** up.

When was this?

A few games ago (Saints on Good Friday maybe..?). A ref (can't remember who) was in the defensive line and Tomkins had to swerve around him to kick a ball dead.

Yeah he "got away" with a 3 match ban for a reckless challenge (which the RFL and any sane person could see was poorly timed/executed but not malicious)

Have the people comparing the Hock ban and this actually seen the two incidents? They're not remotely similar.

Personally I think Ablett is lucky not to have got a 1-2 match ban as it was dangerous. [uBUT[/u it didn't look premeditated - Manu's forearm was across Ablett's windpipe at the time (I'm not saying this was deliberate foul play before people jump in) - Ablett initially tries to push Manu in the face with an an open hand then when this doesn't work appears to scratch/grab at his face...I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was an act of desperation

If someone was on my windpipe and I wanted them to get off, I'd be grabbing at the arm on the windpipe first.

RFL view of the incident...



[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3610[/url

/thread

:30h8rndb

Surely it depends on your body position relative to the arm [Edit.

And from a self defence point of view you'd be making a mistake - it's far more effective to go for the face than to try to out muscle an attacker (there's a natural reflex to pull away and protect the face...especially the eyes)...of course in a rugby match it's not quite the same!!!

How can he have his arm locked yet scratch at his eyes?!
If they're talking about the other arm, surely that's holding the ball and it would be poor to try anything with that invade he loses it?! Seems a strange thing to write in the disciplinary!


But this isn't self defence in the street, it's a rugby match as you say. Attempting to scratch at your opponents eyes isn't an acceptable defence. It's like says "he put an arm in my face do I bit it" is OK.

He scratches, and then open palms him in the head because he got roughed up in the tackle, and yet gets nothing. In fact, he got rewarded a penalty. What sort of message does that send out?

Bless.

Not only was it a deliberate and disgusting eye gouge.....Ol' Smackhead plead [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3186GUILTY[/url to both charges!

You can't possibly be that stupid. I'll just assume you missed this bit...



I was stating the facts of the case. I've got no idea why you responded to be honest.

I responded to the usual cherry tinted nonsense you Pie People manage to trot out whenever any of your players, or indeed your Club steps over the line.

[i"The panel believe the player's actions were reckless and contact was certainly made with the eyes of the opponent"[/i.

Even if they did accept his Plea in Mitigation that it was not deliberate

, I don't, nor I suspect do any non Wigan fans who watched the replays either.The 4 match ban, plus another for striking the guy is a pretty clear indicator of what they really thought of this obnoxious individual.

He plead Guilty to gouging. Hardly the response of an innocent person who is convinced of his innocence, and received a 4 match ban for the offence. As always, Google is your friend, and would suggest you look up the words guilty/culpable/blameworthy/reprehensible......

What on earth are you chatting on about? I was pointing out to someone that Hock's disciplinary record had no bearing on the outcome of his disciplinary hearing and that Ablett can't have got away with the same offence based on his disciplinary record because neither had significant mitigating or aggravating factors. So the only way Ablett could have been let off was to have not been found guilty of the same offence (which is what happened).

Quite why that's 'cherry tinted nonsense' as you put it I'll never know. I gave no opinion on the Hock incident and no opinion on the Ablett incident either. I just pointed out the inaccuracies with that the person was suggesting.

I'll be honest, I'm puzzled by what it is you're going on about.

Don't understand how they say he doesn't make contact with his eyes. Just about every poster on here (including Leeds fans) accept he made contact with the eyes. Even Stevo saw it!

Some say minimal, others say he tried blinding him, but everyone accept he made contact with the eyes except the numpties on the disciplinary panel.

For me Ablett scratched at the eyes. Wasn't as bad as Hocks but has no part in our game and is worth a 3 match ban.

He doesn't actually make contact with the eyes. He was very very close with two of his fingers, and there was a definite scratch/gouge movement. All I can think of is that he's been let off because he missed. There is no justice in the RL Disciplinary Panel because if such huge inconsistencies and it being a complete lottery if someone is charged or not.