Cockayne never did.

Yes I noticed that too.

I must be the only person on this thread to think Radford deserved a ban! Not only did he repeatedly fist a man whilst he was down but he carried on losing the plot well after he was sent off. I think people's views are clouded because the 'victim' was Bailey. Bailey was using his elbows on Radford but you see this every week in SL when the tackler does not get off a player quickly enough.

I actually like Radford as a player and think he is underrated by many FC fans, but on this occasion he well and truly lost the plot.

I think the point is:
Excellent record in a long career +
Max penalty of 1 game +
72 minutes already served =
Sending off sufficient + £300 fine in a sane world

The problem for us is that Radders usually overdelivers in the derbies and Dowes who will replace him has been poor when he's managed to get a game recently.

I'm not really defending Radford, it's the fact that it was an offence with a one game penalty and he's already served more minutes than he normally spends on the pitch during a game. Plus his very good record seems to count for nothing.

If you judge it as an unprovoked attack (and I aware we're a little way through the looking glass), then maybe not. To invert the song lyrics, just because it's wrong, it doesn't make it false.
Still you're giving the wheel of justice another spin - may as well.

Being a rovers fan I suppose the party line is "he deserved a ban", however as a rugby league fan first there is no way he even deserved to be sent off. I really feel that the panel stretches reality at times, they must be the only ones who never saw Bailey's ridiculous head butt attempt on Long.

At the rovers game against the taffs, they say that no punches were thrown in the Dobson incident, well again they must have been watching something else as the Crusaders player throws the ball away so he can throw punches (at least 3).

It sums it up for me when the RFL let Bailey off every time he goes up before them (must be 10 times now in last 12 months) and never take his previous record into account (he's been given warning letters for the same offence twice already this season). The panel was headed by a high court judge and we all know how detached from reality they are.

I hope Radders gets off on appeal, lets get the best line ups on the field and see who is left standing at the end. Only then can either side have proper bragging rights until next season.

I think the thing that rankles is the penalty of 1 game vs 72 minutes already served. If it was classed officially as a more serious 3-8 games offence and he was found guilty, then in the context of the 72 minutes it should be 2 games minimum. It's the combination of the maximum penalty, the fact that he's already served 72 minutes and then chuck in his good record for good measure that makes another game ban a bit annoying.

I think you've got the game mixed up with one of your other dvd's mate

for once i agree mrs b

I think u may be right!!

Like many have said, it's surprising that he's gotten the ban as he's already missed 72 minutes of a game, and was provoked, and has a very good record over a long career.
I'm not justifying what he did - he was elbowed, but he didn't have the best reaction - however, I'd have thought that the panel would have had more sense and taken his record, the provokation, and the length of the sending off into account, too.
I was expecting/hoping for a sos+fine.

Everyone wants him in our side for the derby. This is the most a derby game has meant for a while now (well, it has the most at stake, competition wise, lets say), and as such everyone will want each team to have their best sides out, not just to make it even, but so that we get the best possible match.

We already know the reactions that will be had after the match.
FC win: it'll be 4-0 4-0 and you'll never win a playoff, rubbing it in fc faces

KR win: we've won the most important game, rubbing it in fc faces. Fc fans reply with 3-1 3-1.

ive put this on other thread but ill put it on here to incase nobody knows.



Radders is appealing against it tomorrow

It may be harsh, and as a Leeds fan I can agree with you that Bailey is a moron and undoubtedly a consistently dirty player. But Radford lost his head...that's what Bailey does, he tries to provoke a response out of the opposition. Radford reacted and stupidly threw the punches while Bailey was still on the floor. I bet if he'd waited for him to get up then it would have been a yellow, not a red and we wouldn't even be discussing this.

Of course you are Newby!


FWIW I would have thought the sending off was sufficient punishment. Worth an appeal?

3-1? Have I missed something?

Another terrible decision for th RFL.

The whole system needs looking at.

It should have been a yellow card and penalty, he gets a red card which looks like cost us the game and 4th spot and now misses another game.

Not suprised by this at all though.

Hopfully will appeal and get off.

yes

if FC appeal,can they use video of wellens as a comparison,and ask why he wasn`t charged??

Appealing this morning Rule representing him!

Thats going to look great, the guy representing Radders sporting a black eye

The first question to JR could be 'Has Mr Radford forced you to come this morning?'

When they appeal, if they give him an extra match ban (big possibility for appealing) and then we beat you; would the extra match go into next season? and would a friendly count towards the ban?

As the rlf have given Radders the max ban for the incident, can they increase it on a frivolous appeal?

Not sure on these things; but when i hear about appeals normally ive seen that they get an extra game.

Cant get an extra match, as he was only graded with an "A" offence which carries a maximum 1 game ban.