Has been charged with a Grade C - Dangerous contact with no EGP available. 1) What the hell is this for? Can't think of any incident yesterday that this would be about. 2) How come he doesn't have an EGP? I didn't think he had been in trouble this season but I guess he must have? 3) Nice to see whilst Hansen gets a grade C (seems to be the minimum grade for Leigh players!) Fev were looked at over 3 x dangerous throws and 1 x dangerous contact. 3 grade A's and 1 caution issued. 4) No mention of the biting allegation from AJ despite it being put on report. www.rugby-league.com/article/383 ... rs-charged

Has been charged with a Grade C - Dangerous contact with no EGP available. 1) What the hell is this for? Can't think of any incident yesterday that this would be about. 2) How come he doesn't have an EGP? I didn't think he had been in trouble this season but I guess he must have? 3) Nice to see whilst Hansen gets a grade C (seems to be the minimum grade for Leigh players!) Fev were looked at over 3 x dangerous throws and 1 x dangerous contact. 3 grade A's and 1 caution issued. 4) No mention of the biting allegation from AJ despite it being put on report. www.rugby-league.com/article/383 ... rs-charged

This Will be real bad news if He cops a ban. I think he was banned for a game really early, which he carried over from his salford days, hence no EGP

Quote ="Nozzy"Has been charged with a Grade C - Dangerous contact with no EGP available. 1) What the hell is this for? Can't think of any incident yesterday that this would be about. 2) How come he doesn't have an EGP? I didn't think he had been in trouble this season but I guess he must have? 3) Nice to see whilst Hansen gets a grade C (seems to be the minimum grade for Leigh players!) Fev were looked at over 3 x dangerous throws and 1 x dangerous contact. 3 grade A's and 1 caution issued. 4) No mention of the biting allegation from AJ despite it being put on report. www.rugby-league.com/article/383 ... rs-charged'" No doubt anti Leigh Reffy will justify it for ya.

Quote ="Nozzy"Has been charged with a Grade C - Dangerous contact with no EGP available. 1) What the hell is this for? Can't think of any incident yesterday that this would be about. 2) How come he doesn't have an EGP? I didn't think he had been in trouble this season but I guess he must have? 3) Nice to see whilst Hansen gets a grade C (seems to be the minimum grade for Leigh players!) Fev were looked at over 3 x dangerous throws and 1 x dangerous contact. 3 grade A's and 1 caution issued. 4) No mention of the biting allegation from AJ despite it being put on report. www.rugby-league.com/article/383 ... rs-charged'" No doubt anti Leigh Reffy will justify it for ya.

Just had a look and you are right.

Hansen got a grade B last September in the final round of the 8's, Salford v Hull KR. Because it happened in the last game of the year he basically had no EGP available for the entire 2016 season!

So far this season we have had players banned for 3, 3, 7 and 4 matches.

Hopefully there is nothing in this one, would be a kick in the balls to lose HH at this point on top of losing Acton for 4 matches last week.

Que?

The Match Review Panel description of Hansen's charge is: Rule – 15.1(i) Detail – Dangerous Contact - Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of his body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle. =#FF0000Grade C In contrast, the Match Review Panel description of Ian Hardman's charge is: Rule –15.1(i) Detail – Dangerous Contact - Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of his body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle. =#FF0000Grade A Very interesting! media.therfl.co.uk/docs/MATCH%20 ... .08.16.pdf

The Match Review Panel description of Hansen's charge is: Rule – 15.1(i) Detail – Dangerous Contact - Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of his body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle. =#FF0000Grade C In contrast, the Match Review Panel description of Ian Hardman's charge is: Rule –15.1(i) Detail – Dangerous Contact - Defending player, in or after effecting a tackle, uses any part of his body forcefully to bend or apply unnecessary pressure to the head and/or neck and/or spinal column of the tackled player so as to keep the tackled player at a disadvantage in or after the tackle. =#FF0000Grade A Very interesting! media.therfl.co.uk/docs/MATCH%20 ... .08.16.pdf

Could it be Hansens tackle had more potential for injury than Hardman?

No. Hansen plays for Leigh.

Looks like the three dangerous throws that Fev players are up for are the same tackle. And they only get grade A because they didn't know what each other were doing.

With injury worries for Moimoi and Weston, along with Acton's ban, a ban for Hansen would have us down to bare bones.

Really? So the 11 games Acton has got this season is down to RFL victimising Leigh?

Must be.

I don't think Leigh are being victimised and I am not one for conspiracy theories that everyone is out to get us but there is a huge problem with the lack of transparency in these decisions.

When Acton was given a Grade C (2-3 matches) the panel gave him a 4 match ban. One of the reasons given for going outside the recommended range was that the tackle had 'potential to cause injury'. I guess that is true but thankfully Burgess was absolutely fine and played on with no problems.

However when Sean O'Loughlin was given a Grade C after he took Annakin's head off the panel again judged that they should ignore the recommended sanctions and he was only given a 1 match ban. This is despite the fact that Annakin actually WAS seriously injured and the tackle actually ended the young lads season.

So on one hand we have a player punished MORE than the recommended range because he COULD have caused an injury.

On the other hand we have a player punished LESS than recommended range despite the fact that he DID cause a serious injury and ended the other players season.

It just lacks any sort of consistency and it is extremely frustrating.

The average length of a ban handed out to Leigh players this season is 3.6 matches! In SL they are terrified of banning 'big names' (Brough a recent example, just 2 games for deliberately elbowing Tomkins in the face on the floor) whilst for certain teams they hand out 3 and 4 match bans like sweets!

Excellently put - the inconsistency is outrageous.

Nozzy, I quite like your post because you do make a lot of sense, however this post could be judge as either inconsistency or victimization. The disciplinary decisions are just not right, in fact they are way off being anywhere near consistent. Something is wrong somewhere. I for one am very frustrated with it.

Just a thought. Has anyone actually seen H's misdemeanour?

I must admit I can't recall it so it is dissapointing to find we have a player on a Grade C charge. I will however reserve judgement until I review it.

Its also of particular note to discover that a Super League player is facing a potential 10 match suspension when he faces the disciplinary committee.

Blimey, and he wasn't even wearing a Leigh shirt.

Could you kindly tell us the player and the incident? It's just that there is nothing of the kind in the official disciplinary cases.

For the 10 match one?

Dave Taylor accused of a Grade E eye gouge on Jonny Lomax in the Saints v Catalan game last weekend.

Edit: As well as a separate grade B offence.

Plus he may have suffered some broken ribs.

AND he just pleaded guilty to some sort of drugs offence back in Aus.

Not been a great week for the Coal Train!

Cheers Nozzy. What would the reason be for not listing it in the official disciplinary cases?

Quote ="Cokey"Cheers Nozzy. What would the reason be for not listing it in the official disciplinary cases?'" It happened in Round 2 rather than the weekend just gone which was round 3, maybe that has something to do with it. Not sure what the week delay was for. It is mentioned here - www.rugby-league.com/article/383 ... rs-charged

Quote ="Cokey"Cheers Nozzy. What would the reason be for not listing it in the official disciplinary cases?'" It happened in Round 2 rather than the weekend just gone which was round 3, maybe that has something to do with it. Not sure what the week delay was for. It is mentioned here - www.rugby-league.com/article/383 ... rs-charged

Good grief. Iv'e just found it. Going back to the 12 Aug and he has another charge on the 18 Aug against Hull fc for a dangerous throw, lifting and dropping = grade B.

Think we can complain (or not) when we have seen the tackle by Hansen....

Yep,you're right budge. I must admit though, i was going off the 2 identical incident descriptions(one being Hansen & the other Hardman) with 2 different charges. I guess one must be worse than the other. After saying that, There wasn't any difference between Acton & Sowards antics going in from behind but there was different outcomes. We shall see,all in good time.

I know Cokey, identical descriptions for a Grade A & C challenge.....weird....but then again it's the RFL we're talking about. I still can't 'get my head round how pie Sean O'loughlin recieved only a 1 game ban for his assault on the Wakefield player.

Totally agree. It beggar's belief.

The RFL need to be brought to bare now, this is way beyond any reasonable description of incompetence.

I don't know who could or would do it, maybe coaches & directors of both SL & Championship Clubs need to sit at a table at Red Hall & lay it on the line.

My line would go something like "fix yourselves or we will fix you", leave the RFL under no illusion that their number is almost up.