www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... Pryce.html l

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... Pryce.html l

Softer sentence than the RFL Disciplinary Panel would have given them, some example eh

pryce shouldnt be able to play for 100 hours

What a ridiculous sentence I expect Pryce will be serving his community service teaching kids. Yet another thug getting away scott free we don't need this in the game

I trust that, to pass judgement on the case, you've been in court and heard all the evidence presented.....or you don't like either man and based your 'punishments' on that?

to be fair they have been to court to see what their debt to society is . being a member of the aforementioned society then we all have a right to an opinion on the sentence.

did they plead guilty

im a bit gutted , if he had got 6 months then ray blundermouth french would of dropped it in a cup match on the beeb , ohhhh and there it is the former full Sutton lad (probably get prison wrong) he just pick the ball up like a piece of soap and ran his heart out .

They both pleaded guilty.

From what I have read and heard about the case it was never really going to result in jail time. The big let off for me was Pryce's previous misdemeanor.

from what i heard they didn't do anything that would warrant getting sent down.

I think the media played up on the magistrates words of ‘expect a custodial sentence’. This obviously gave the impression that the incident was much worse then what actually happened. After seeing the facts then a sentence would have seemed harsh, especially considering Cockayne avoided jail time for a far worse incident. .

Presume saints are gonna follow hull kr's line and suspend pryce until he's done his community service!!!!

as expected really.

Why? Do all clubs treat disciplinary matters the same?

Should our clubs display a consistent commitment to dealing seariously with acts of lawlessness that bring our "family" game, the clubs and the players into disrespect?
I believe rovers, in their dealings with cocayne, have shown a willingness to simply not brush it under the carpet. Will saints take an equal view??
My statement remains the same, what's your point, if you have one.

very very lucky there. To say they imprisoned the guy in his own home and beat him up very suprised they avoided jail.

The crimes committed are not the same, so why should the punishments be the same? Cas sacked the lad involved in the Cockayne incident - should Saints sack Pryce?

Would Cas have sacked the reserve grade player no-one has heard of if he was a star player in the first team?

Pryce has been dealt with by the justice system, what Saints choose to do, is completely at their discretion unless the RFL say otherwise.

I know little more about the facts than anyone else, but I do have some expertise in this field, and so I can help a bit.

The case was dealt with in the Magistrates Court, and so it was always at the lesser end of the spectrum. They both denied it initially but then admitted it later on, which isn't uncommon. An immediate guilty plea results in a one-third reduction in what the case otherwise merits, and so the maxiumum possible sentence would have been four months had they pleaded guilty straight away. They would have lost some of that reduction, but even a guilty plea on the day of the trial would have resulted in a ten percent reduction.

It is not uncommon for a court to adjourn for sentence with a view to sending someone to prison and then step back from that on the day of sentence. Although some may take the view that it was a deliberate frightener by the judge, the initial view on sentence will have been based upon the information available to the court at the time. On the actual sentence date, the court will have additional information, which will have no doubt included testimonials and references and also a fuller account of the defendants's remorse. This often mitigates away from the initial indication.

It should be noted that Reardon did receive a prison sentence, except that it was suspended. Pryce's previous misdemeanour will have been taken into account, along with the fact that he took a lesser role (ie, he didn't assault someone in a domestic context, and to some extent, went along for the ride). Also, the case was dealt with by a Deputy District Judge, who is a solicitor or barrister employed as a professional judge, and therefore will have sentenced in accordance with the appropriate guidelines, and who would have been less likely to be swayed by the fame of the defendants (such as it is in relation to Reardon).

As someone with some expertise in this field, and from what I know about the case, was I surprised at the sentence? No, not really, is the answer.

I hope this helps.

Personally Pryce going to jail would not make a scrap of difference to me, neither would it help our club. But I totally agree withyou on his previous misdemeanor. The man ought to have gone to jail and still be in there for what he did.

Same here no difference to me. Pryce seems a nice guy whenever i have spoken to him.

Peter Sutcliffe was a real laugh at parties,let's release him!!

Every time I see a picture of Fred West, he's got a big grin on his face.

And that Rose West!!What an animal!!

At least if the telly went on the blink..........
He might be even able to sort the loo lights out!!!!!

Just one little tap with his hammer!!icon_rolleyes.gif

None of the crimes warrented custodial sentences, that was exactly the judge's verdict, what employers do is up to them, some do the right thing, some don't!! Admitedly it's easier to release a has been or a never will be from his contract or suspend a lesser known player, however incidents like this bring our game into the spotlight and how the clubs act should send a clear message, we don't want our stars acting like this.
Failure to act sends out the wrong message, totally.