That’s an extreme incident in fairness and there would need to be a line somewhere I guess. That Flower incident was borderline criminal and it would indeed feel wrong if he then run out in a World Cup. How often do incidents like that happen though? Not very seems to be the answer. He was banned in months rather than games thinking back. If we look at gradings now, isn’t the most serious a grade F? Maybe just those sit out all competitions but then is it fair that somebody runs a serious club ban down in an international comp? It’s all pretty tricky but other sports seem to cope. I’m not sure what the rules are in Union and that would be interesting.

I'm pretty sure domestic bans in union are in weeks rather than games which can/does rule players out of internationals. That's not to they have it right either though,

I believe domestic bans in football aren't carried into internationals although surely they will for drugs etc? Did Suarez play for Uruguay after all the racial stuff with Evra? Can't think of any examples although I've hardly got an interest any more.

It would be a brave governing body that drew a line in the sand and allowed carry over for some suspensions and not others, all it would take is one player to take it further and it would get laughed out of court.

It`s ok Knowles now cleared to play after the appeal of the appeal has reduced his ban to zero.

UNBELIEVABLE

What an embarrassment. And the authorities of the sport wonder why nobody takes RL seriously in the media. Circus

Good.

It's the GF, I want to see the best players on the pitch. Not on the sidelines. Bans are absolutely pointless anyway.

Absolutely not. If you say in advance, bans don't carry over to a GF, that's one thing. But if you don't, it's ridiculous he plays.

Like I said on another thread, "dont count your chicken wings". Joke of a decision from the highest level - the game is fast heading to part time / amateur status.

The people who made this decision are part time/amateur. Simply not good enough.
Time that those responsible for bringing the game into disrepute are named and shamed.

The MRP shouldnt be made up of ex player dinosaurs who havent played or coached the game in 20 years for a start. It should be an independent panel of people with legal experience who know what the grades mean for an incident and can apply those rules correctly with no wiggle room.

Danny Sculthorpe and Wilf George on the panel.

The appeal looks perfectly reasonable when you look at the minutes, what the original MRP say about the force in the tackle has been contradicted by the ban being upheld.

[urlhttps://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/Appeal%20Minutes.pdf[/url

So they admit that the arm was "at the end of its natural range of movement", but also insist that because it didn't go beyond that, that there was no "unnacceptable risk".

By that logic, ANY foul that doesn't result in an injury (which this would if there had been ANY additional movement) should receive no ban.

Absolute garbage.

Biggest load of crap I've ever read.

Do they actually understand the concept of risk? Risk is not a result, it's a possibility. How can "being at the limit of it's natural movement" not be a risk? The "risk" is that any further movement would have resulted in injury.

Totally pathetic.

Just because he didn't dislocate his arm doesn't make it ok

Is when someone gets spear tackled and is able to walk afterwards doesn't make it ok.

Flowers ban was for a period of time rather than a number of matches. Bans for more serious offences are handed out that way so internationals within the banned timeframe would count.

i was listening to the GF on talksport with Paul Cooke and Craig Murdoch. i think it was Cooke who said he had been asked to be on the disciplinary panel, obviously he declined. he said he doesnt agree with the current laws and thus would be adjudicating against something he doesnt agree with. Made a couple of comments in the time i had it on, that this tackle / that tackle would have been fine when we played, so i cant agree with the current laws / rules re some of the tackles

And this I’d suspect is a big problem. The disciplinary procedure might be in a right old mess, but moving ahead it’s not going to be helped if that sort of viewpoint has sizeable sentiment and has an input on decision making as it will just tie it all in knots and lead to a lottery of outcomes.

As I said in my introductory post the other day, I follow both League and Union and the exact same arguments are had currently in both games. The officiating and what now gets penalised. What you can and can’t do. Wailing that the games gone soft. Opposing camps on how many games a player should be playing. Etc etc etc. I see plenty of people argue that incidents where swinging arms that hit the head should be fine, or like last week plenty of comments about Bateman’s red and whether it should have been, and just shake my head.

Some of the officiating might be over-zealous and getting things wrong and needs to improve. I fully accept that there are a lot of moving parts involved and sometimes accidents/incidents happen and you can’t and don’t want to eliminate all of the competition and ability to tackle. But, more often that not, a bigger problem is those involved being unwilling to adapt. Players have to learn to stop bloody clouting people in the head. The height of the tackle and the collision is coming down, whether people like it or not. That might lead to “softer” defence and more metres and more tries etc. and less of smashing into each other and what a lot of people think Rugby is built on. But we’re all on a path now.

With the knowledge and awareness and spotlight on concussion and welfare, and the potential ramifications both legal and health (brain injury, dementia, MND, etc), the direction of travel is only going to go one way and it is inevitable. Both codes of the sport and those involved in it – players, coaches, media, fans - need to wise up. Otherwise I do fear for Rugby as an entity in the future.

Yes, well said.

A lot of what you say makes sense and I think the vast majority of fans are rightly against smacking players in the head, that has always been the case.

I think the major issues are more around the marginal tackles, such as where a player's arm hits the opponents upper arm or shoulder and rides up into the head or where a player starts to make a tackle and the opponent starts to go down and tends up being hit high. I get the duty of care etc but often it is a split second where a player goes in to make what they intend to be a fair tackle and circumstances outside the tacklers control make it a bad tackle.

The biggest issue is the sheer inconsistency of officials/disciplinary which is what riles a lot of fans, there will never be a perfect system but allowing two and three appeals looks bad and points out that the original decision making was questionable. The whole disciplinary system needs a full overall and the officiating needs to be more consistent and for that I think the referees need stronger guidance as to what should and should not be punished and be more accountable for their decisions. And don't get me started on the video "assistants" ....

Obviously not if you look at the tackle by Martyn on Lomax in the Grand Final. Had he not twisted and put out his arm the result could have been serious.

Is Bateman staying or heading back down under ?

Redcliffe

Redcliffe where after French were they not?

if he hadnt have twisted and put his arm out he wouldnt have gone over the horizontal so wouldnt have been a penalty