Again, why are we giving game time to the guy we're getting rid of, rather than the guy we're keeping?

But yeah, as you say, no point in a brief cameo. If it's just a matter of giving Powell a short break, Shorrocks can cover it.

Still wouldn't be surprised to see Faz in the centres and Hardaker at full-back.

Bateman has won an appeal and is now playing.

It's almost like the ref made it up, but had no evidence...

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/35 ... C-tribunal

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/35 ... C-tribunal

He didn't make it up
He did say something, they accepted he didn't say it to the ref but another player.

So the ref made a mistake and we got a man in the bin for it?

Or the ref thought that he did say it to him, the RFL agrees (surprise surprise) and an independent tribunal called out the BS?

Yes

No

Yes & NO

I know your currently on a ref bashing exercise and i've made my opinion clear that I deffo don't agree with a lot orienteering done, but it's not a conspiracy

Possibly, but if it isn't a conspiracy - then it's incompetence isn't it?

Not necessarily asking you on this one, more just throwing it out there - why did it need to go appeal? It just smacks of the RFL backing refs to the hilt, regardless of who gets hit in the cross fire. JB misses a game, we don't get to see him play. All obviously not as important as making it seem like the ref didn't get it wrong.

FWIW, even if JB did say it to the ref. It's not worth 16k in the stands + how ever many others on TV, having to watch a diminished spectacle because of a few choice words.

Who on earth do you think "the RFL" are? It may suit your agenda to anonymise them but the match review panel aren't some faceless unknowns.

All the same and it doesn't really matter what they are called. It's a cartel where they all close ranks.

I think the problem is you don't know how the process works.

Quite possibly. I'm not doing a Ruddy Duck here and saying my way is the only way...

Feel free to talk me through it as the way this one looks to the 'uneducated', it doesn't paint the process in a good light. Two varying points of argument and the match review panel back their own man. An independent tribunal then review it and find JB not guilty.

One of the main points behind the charging process is for players to accept the grading and charge.
In this instance (and bear in mind its different than a tackle were they can see for themselves what happened ) they will have i assume listened to the refs mic etc and said 1 game which i wouldn't have argued with.
But if a player disputes and can provide evidence to the contrary then the disciplinary are free to review.
Obviously wigan/Bateman have provided evidence of some sort and the disciplinary have accepted that explanation

Edit
Bateman can't give his explanation before he's charged, so they haven't looked at both sides of the story and then believed the ref to then only change their minds.

Thanks & apologise if I'm being slow, but basically what you're saying is that it goes off what the ref says and the players don't get to put their side, or evidence across before an initial decision is made?

That seems like, at best, shaky ground and at worst a perfect opportunity to sweep things under the carpet, especially in situations like this. The mic picks up the wording, but there's no proof to say who it's aimed at, so they charge him based off the account of the ref.

Players are charged first.

The severity is then decided.

The player can then accept or challenge and it goes to "trial"

Exactly. There's no conspiracy whatsoever, unless you're a tinfoil hatter, but clubs remain able to challenge if they have other evidence or don't agree with the grading.

Make sure you explain to your own fans on your site?

Ahhh the old tinfoil hat argument. Good one.

Just every other walk of life you're asked to explain yourself & ALL the evidence is reviewed before a charge is made. Not, we've got some stuff that paints the picture we want and we'll not bother with any other due diligence on this one.

Great process, but nope it's me and my tinfoil hat.

Not exactly
The time between the charge and the trial is when evidence is gathered and the TRIAL is where the evidence is supplied.

They had enough evidence to charge him, he's then supplied the evidence that has satisfied them he isn't guilty

I'm not totally against your current stance on refs, but currently your masking your valid points with rants against refs/officials/rfl at every opportunity imo

Whether you agree with the process or not, it is what it is, and they've followed it.
They haven't backed down, they haven't been called out for their BS as you put it.
Theyve just followed the process

Got it in one. Rarely do you see someone regularly talk so confidently about something they understand so little about.

Not dragging this on, but I have no doubt they've followed the process. It's just the process is a rigged game imo. One that leans towards protecting their own. That's the heart of all my arguments when if comes to them.

Before you are charged, you at least are interviewed and asked to give a statement. Ironically, in this situation that could have solved this whole issue days ago i.e if they'd just asked JB for a statement. If they'd have done that then you'd have hope they'd have found the same as the tribunal. That in turn let's us focus on the match etc.

As a side note, we've established that the ref got it wrong on the night. The lack of an apology speaks volumes about that organisation imo. Use Isa as an example of owning your actions, he's publicly apologised for not getting it right. Will Kendall do the same?

I don't know, we do have to listen to your opinions on a number of rugby related issues.

You not gonna say anything about your boys getting it wrong and sending JB to the bin? Funny how earlier in the season you'd be happy to slate the performance of Hanley, but stay quiet when your a ref has a shocker.

Isa should have had a red, dead wrong and the appointments reflect that (presume you haven't looked because it doesn't suit your agenda to note that officials are regularly dropped based on performance). There's three officials who should have picked that forearm up. All pay for it this week because of one moment in one game. It's the equivalent of Hanley getting dropped the first time one of his errors cost us points (but as we know it actually generally took weeks of staying at the top of the league for 'errors made' for Hanley to be dropped, I digress).

Hard to know on the Bateman one, we don't have the facts and there may well be little/no evidence to go off, especially as my understanding is that his defence was about who the abuse was directed towards rather than whether it was said at all.

One of many things you don't seem to grasp is that it's not just all 'the RFL'. The on field officials and the disciplinary panel are totally separate. Different people, don't meet or train together or anything like that. In fact you could make a strong argument that they aren't aligned because of this. We don't know who was right, and the outcome doesn't necessarily mean the parties disagree. He may well have said something that was worth a sin bin, but wasn't worth a ban on top of that.

This is an interesting one for you to square up. When you haven't been encouraging people to assault referees, you have banged on about how they can't possibly make decisions because they haven't played at a high level. Here you have an ex-academy player ref, one of the touch judges previously playing at a decent level, and the disciplinary panel made up of ex-SL players. How can they possibly be wrong?

I'd say let's not look a gift horse in the mouth there.

Shorrocks at 9 again, Field starts at 1, Bullock dropped from 17

I guess we should have a comp: guess how many minutes Bourouh plays.



WTAF with Bullock?