So he's actually only been up for one offence!

I think Briscoe's must be for keeping both boots on for 80 minutes

im glad there getting their warnings, beats getting the crappy fair play award!!!

Or actually trying to get up after the tackle , how many pens did he get on friday for just trying to speed the ptb up ??

www.therfl.co.uk/superleague/new ... p?id=16589 States he got a official warning. Hard to say without seeing the offence what he is really guilty of though.

www.therfl.co.uk/superleague/new ... p?id=16589 States he got a official warning. Hard to say without seeing the offence what he is really guilty of though.

Saw the David ferriol incident on SLTV and could see why he hit out after he kneed in the back in the tackle. The player who did it gave himself up to the ref, but the ref did nowt and so Ferriol took it into his own hands

looks like they both could get a ban Morley 1-2 matches Carvell 2-3, would have thought Morley's was worse than Carv's

Both bad, both deserve about 2, they will be gutted they have Wigan this week. Mind you god only knows what the RFL will actually give them

Knowing the RFL it will be a bacon buttie and a copy of the match video to keep
idjits they are

Briscoe

Incident considered - Kicking out in the tackle in 51st minute
Decision No charge
Details of Charge / Reason for NF - Player kicks out when tackled, does not catch opponent but potential for injury, warning letter to make player aware of potential for injury

So it looks like he has been warned for trying to get up quickly

Carvell - 1 game - will probably appeal

Morley - not guilty - go figure

Now that's extracting the urine if ever I saw it. It was an attack to the head ffs!

Go on Wire board...they are celebrating........cant wait til Hame and Shrek get hold of them.

That info seems to be based on a tweet from Mathers. Nothing official on the RFL site as of 5 mins ago.

No but they were slow in getting the info up yesterday as well Kosh. Sounds about right though knowing the RFL.

Aye. Just interested in how they weasel out of it in the full judgement.

Quote ="cod'ead"Carvell - 1 game - will probably appeal [uMorley - not guilty - go figure[/u'" What a joke ! news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 516811.stm

Quote ="cod'ead"Carvell - 1 game - will probably appeal [uMorley - not guilty - go figure[/u'" What a joke ! news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 516811.stm

Ffs...the RFL need to grow some



Morley not guilty but our boy got a warning letter for trying to get up

The RFL are a joke.

Aye..flipping Wigan & Warrington on sky best not spoil it for the viewers eh

Very cynical of you BB, probably right though

Open season on halfbacks then, Orford last week and now Sherwin

Long and Horne being fitted for head gear as we speak

Regarding Morleys diciplinary Quote Player accompanied by Coach, Tony Smith. Player has less than half a second pull out of tackle. Opponent collapsing at point of contact. Contact on chest. Player was committed. No raised arm. Opponent goes down and ducks into it. Player has both arms out. Unable to pull out of tackle. Original contact was with opponent’s chest. No reaction from touch judge who has clear view. Video ref and official indicate not sufficient to put on report although a penalty was awarded. Decision Not guilty Reasons for Decision The committee have scrutinised DVD very carefully. There was a collision and committee are not satisfied this could have been avoided. The committee are also not satisfied the initial contact was high but was towards the upper part of the body. The player’s arms were out but committee not satisfied this case is made out and find the player not guilty of a high tackle as charged. '" Full details here www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1596

Regarding Morleys diciplinary Quote Player accompanied by Coach, Tony Smith. Player has less than half a second pull out of tackle. Opponent collapsing at point of contact. Contact on chest. Player was committed. No raised arm. Opponent goes down and ducks into it. Player has both arms out. Unable to pull out of tackle. Original contact was with opponent’s chest. No reaction from touch judge who has clear view. Video ref and official indicate not sufficient to put on report although a penalty was awarded. Decision Not guilty Reasons for Decision The committee have scrutinised DVD very carefully. There was a collision and committee are not satisfied this could have been avoided. The committee are also not satisfied the initial contact was high but was towards the upper part of the body. The player’s arms were out but committee not satisfied this case is made out and find the player not guilty of a high tackle as charged. '" Full details here www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1596

Think we should employ whoever Warrington are using at these meetings in future. Carvell gets his ban lifted but still keeps the guilty verdict and fine!!!!!!!!

Have to agree, how the hell can that happen, either he is guilty or he isn't. And how the f'k did Morley get off?