Banned for 4 games.

I said before that generally the serious thuggery of 10 or 20 years ago has gone from the game. Players are more professional and are 99% of the time not setting about to deliberately injure others. The RFL disciplinary though sees the same players time and time again without doing anything about persistent offenders. Players that lead with an elbow , raise their knees , put knees in the back etc etc just carry on and get a warning letter and a £300 fine , if that. Everyone knows the players concerned , and Elima is one , but you'll then get a "one-off" high shot that gets a straight red probably for a player with a decent record who's mistimed a tackle and then gets SOS after it's been looked at again. We and other clubs have been the victim of both losing a player to a red card when we shouldn't have and losing a player injured by foul play where the perpetrator stays on. Interpretation , variations , a lack of consistency and a lack of transparency are the problem and that's usually from the RFL rather than the refs who will of course make mistakes and be at varying standards just like players. I understand that Ashley Klein seems to have developed into a good referee in Oz but whilst here he was probably deemed the worst ever which leads me to think that it's the rules they're working with and all the weekly changes of emphasis that cause the problems much of the time.

doesn't do us any favours though, good job we won the game!

it's ridiculous, as you say good job we won.

Shows up Ganson & Smith as that clowns that they are, they both saw the replays and could have / shoud have intervened.

Still glad he got 4 games tho.....

Should have been more.

Heremaia could have missed the rest of the season.

as i've stated on another thread if a player is guilty of a high shot bad enough to go on report he should be sin binned.the rule that its red or nothing is a joke as all refs will bottle it knowing the on report option is there.all refs should have to wear the head camera all the time so the head of refs can see their position therefore making the old "i had my view obstructed" excuse harder to use.how a player like soliola can stay on after his high shot is against wire was a joke.if he had got binned chances are the wilkin,turner and waterhouse head highs would'nt of happened.

Is the tackle watchable anywhere as I've only seen the game live ?

Iplayer super league show?

https://twitter.com/rflreferees/status/ ... 3787266049 https://twitter.com/rflreferees/status/ ... 5781058560 Response to my tweet to the RFL refs asking for clarification. So despite every Sky viewer seeing serious foul play the VR saw nothing. Words fail me on this one. Glad he's banned and 4 games is a reasonable ban, but it could have left Azza out for months. Maybe the fact it didn't had an effect on the length of ban. (I doubt that, just playing devis advocate).

https://twitter.com/rflreferees/status/ ... 3787266049 https://twitter.com/rflreferees/status/ ... 5781058560 Response to my tweet to the RFL refs asking for clarification. So despite every Sky viewer seeing serious foul play the VR saw nothing. Words fail me on this one. Glad he's banned and 4 games is a reasonable ban, but it could have left Azza out for months. Maybe the fact it didn't had an effect on the length of ban. (I doubt that, just playing devis advocate).

Cheers it's not on I player until tomorrow as far as I can see

Its shown in detail in the highlights on the hull fc website

Don't the panel see the same footage as the VR at the game. If so, and they have come up with a 4 match ban, how come that Ganson and his pal couldn't see it. Its time for the RFL to insist that referees make the decisions and not leave it to someone else to make the call 4 days later.

The ban should have being at least eight games dirty .

Has anyone seen his comments on Facebook? Doesn't sound sorry at all.

Have you seen that Robert dude sticking up for him?!

Quote ="@airlie_bird"https://twitter.com/rflreferees/status/ ... 3787266049 https://twitter.com/rflreferees/status/ ... 5781058560 Response to my tweet to the RFL refs asking for clarification. So despite every Sky viewer seeing serious foul play the VR saw nothing. Words fail me on this one. Glad he's banned and 4 games is a reasonable ban, but it could have left Azza out for months. Maybe the fact it didn't had an effect on the length of ban. (I doubt that, just playing devis advocate).'" The actual response stated that the VR does not have the time in live play to go frame by frame and therefor could not be sure of actual foul play. Which seems fair enough really.

Quote ="@airlie_bird"https://twitter.com/rflreferees/status/ ... 3787266049 https://twitter.com/rflreferees/status/ ... 5781058560 Response to my tweet to the RFL refs asking for clarification. So despite every Sky viewer seeing serious foul play the VR saw nothing. Words fail me on this one. Glad he's banned and 4 games is a reasonable ban, but it could have left Azza out for months. Maybe the fact it didn't had an effect on the length of ban. (I doubt that, just playing devis advocate).'" The actual response stated that the VR does not have the time in live play to go frame by frame and therefor could not be sure of actual foul play. Which seems fair enough really.

You don't need to go through it frame by frame though, it's easy enough to see after one replay from the right angle!

They have time to go through frame by frame for offsides and try's . Just another cop out and another reason our great sport will be sed at tbh

Just another decision to add to Ganson's ever growing list of cock-ups.

It's only sed at by its own fans.

No they only s at the fools running the game.

Do you stick by this?
During Fridays game alone we had a VR when Shaul knocked the ball dead in Catalans touch in goal. Thaler was on the spot but we had 30 seconds to decide how to restart. We had a Hull kick off out on the full which required another 10-20 seconds for a VR to decide how to restart despite the touch judge saying it was on the full. Yet we have serious foul play which can't be viewed frame by frame. Over the years we have had tries go to a VR and take MINUTES to decide one way or the other.
Now think about this before you respond. If this isn't a cop out I don't know what is.

I am not getting emotional about this because it was a Hull player. I asked the refs for clarification as a RL fan who can't actually believe we have a VR acting on trivia yet serious incidents are not there to be adjudicated on.

Now if you feel the response was measured , honesty and reasonable then fair enough , but I will stick by what I and many others feel (all clubs I might add) that its a complete cop out.

I can't wait for Catalans to complain that the judiciary are too hard on them as that was a clear indication that things often go their way.

surprised it wasn't "penalty sufficient - contact initially made with the shoulder and then slid downwards"

anyway, joking aside, just a couple of points to raise on this...

Firstly I don't see how (as Cat's next opponents) their punishment is so great. OK they've lost Elima but he wil be ably replaced - it's a niggly inconvenience at best.

With regard to going to the screen/Ganson... if this was a Sunday afternoon game this isn't possible - so for fairness and consistency I can't see how they can do this.

To me the RFU get this right - it's either go whole hog on TV replays for EVERY match, or don't go there at all.

Some of the little infringements tries get disallowed for on a Friday night woudn't get noticed without TV, so to me it's an uneven playing field.

As a cas fan I'd rather play our tighter games off air.

The question that needs asking, IMO, is how referees come to the conclusion of putting a player on report.

Now, generally (albeit not the case with Elima this weekend) the referee penalises the infringement. So, surely at this point he has seen the incident. In which case, why put the offence up for review by the disciplinary panel, when he has the evidence to make a decision himself???

I can't see any other answer than that they are scared to, or under some influence not to, make a decision

I agree. And that's very worrying and needs addressing if true.