Alan wrote:Oddly enough, something similar happened in our previous game against Featherstone. Andy Kain was waiting to come on, while Nanyn was kicking at goal. I guess Kain was standing about a foot inside the touchline. Suddenly Robert Hicks yellow carded him and allowed Fev to retain 13 men. It wasn't clear why Hicks crded him, but if itwas for encroaching, it was petty. However, Fev had a sub yellow carded, but were allowed to retain a full team. Granted the sub hadn't actually created a try, but still similar circumstances.


If he was on the field then they had 14 men on, perhaps we should appeal and ask for a re-match?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe it just felt like you were playing 14 but it was evened up by the ref

lol

TBH no ive not ive been too busy with the other 'incident' I'll try and have a lookm at it but at the time i thought we had three on I may be wrong, and we had been warned, thought TBH in those conditions it was rather pedantic of the officials NOT to allow more water on for thats all that Ruddi was doing as PR was doing the messages

Spoke to duffs lastnight, when I was on my Level 3 Course (cos we are proffesional and fully trained stewards, are you reading whitehaven?), and he (duffs), said it has been sorted, but didn't elaborate any further.

I doubt it has Dave as the compliance officer at RFL has only recieved my DVD's about half an hour ago

www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/bo ... legations/ Match Review panel sits today apparently, hopefully Freds video evidence of the incidents will exonerate us

www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/bo ... legations/ Match Review panel sits today apparently, hopefully Freds video evidence of the incidents will exonerate us

Do you think we will get a apology from the Haven fans or Haven at all? response --> sssssssssssssshhhhhhh [size=85(the sound of wind & tumble weeds)[/size

in a word no nothing to apologies for

You were all wrong were,nt you

think you need to read my posts, and everything i said was right

13 or 14 wasn't the issues
duffy sent off for illegally entering the field of play
duffy played apart in the match winning try
still allowed to bring a sub on and play 13 men
haven within their rights to appeal

so which of the above were wrong

the duffy incident was looked at by the dis panel, the event will be reviewd by others to prevent the farce happening again which can only be good for the game

best of luck for the rest of the season

13 or 14 was the issue thats what stokes complained about
duffy was sent off, but following the disciplinary that was clearly a refereeing error and shouldn't have been

So thats one and a half things wrong

The Duffy incident has been deemed not illegal. It also mentions 14 men for a couple of seconds. Therefore if duffs entry was not illegal there is no problem for playing a part in the winning try. Read the disciplinary report stupid. Also because of your appeal it looks like Duffys disciplinary was brought forward (should have been next week) to coincide with the match review panel. The farce was not caused by Duffy or Leigh, as Ged Stokes who caused the farce with his constant harassment of the official on the touchline.

It would also appear the stewarding and behaviour of said stewards is being investigated by the RFL. You got your bonus point, now you can go away and find a website to discuss this on....oh thats right the only ones left have about two posts per board, the main forum has been shut down

get you Demon

TBH no one gives a toss about YOUR post it was the idiotic ramblings of Ged Stokes and HE DID complain there were 14 men on.
Whitehaven were wrong and Duffy had no charge to answer that is the fact.

Spoke to Rob Hicks today in the incident he ref'd he sin binned the sub for interference with the kicker.

You spoke to that prat(duckfeet)

yes he's a mate

Lol

So they have deemed sending off sufficient for Duffy for entering the field a couple of seconds before McConnell left the field. As someone else mentioned lets watch the CC and SL games and see if anything similar happens.

Thought it was 'no charge' Derek? There's a difference - SOS implies he was guilty of something, but punished sufficiently. To me, no charge means he didn't do anything wrong.

Took the phrase SOS from the Sporting Life report that has appeared this morning, the Disciplinary Report on the RFL just says NFA

No Charge on RFL website means no case to answer one would think.

All sorted if you go off this. www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1949 Nice try Haven

All sorted if you go off this. www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1949 Nice try Haven