" I Don't Believe It"

" I Don't Believe It"

Post by PIEMA » Wed, 11 Jun 1997 04:00:00


Just read on text that Swann has got aone match ban for his GBH on Haigh.
And to rub salt into the wound Auckland are considering an appeal.It looks
like the worse the offence the lighter the sentence, as long as  you don't
touch an official, eh Mr Blease. The bloke pushes an official gets a life
ban, Swann nearly causes Andy Haigh a broken Jaw in a malicious attack and
gets one match UNBELIEVABLE.
--
PIEMAN            
SAY NO TO TESCO

http://freespace.***.net/evans.g/pieman
"A man without a woman, is like a neck without a pain"

 
 
 

" I Don't Believe It"

Post by David Cove » Wed, 11 Jun 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> Just read on text that Swann has got aone match ban for his GBH on Haigh.
> And to rub salt into the wound Auckland are considering an appeal.It looks
> like the worse the offence the lighter the sentence, as long as  you don't
> touch an official, eh Mr Blease. The bloke pushes an official gets a life
> ban, Swann nearly causes Andy Haigh a broken Jaw in a malicious attack and
> gets one match UNBELIEVABLE.

        The thing about match bans is that, quite often, nobody loses
        out except the victim and his team  The blokes doing the punching,
        or whatever, are rarely (sometimes, yes, but rarely) the ones who
        make the team tick. Some of the play we've seen from some Aussies -
        and we have it too - has been extremely cynical almost inviting
        retribution in the knowledge that this particular "crime" pays.

        What seems to typically happen is that some thug puts out of
        action one of the opposition who is being particularly
        troublesome - i.e. scoring or getting close in a desperate
        situation.  Now it seems to me that if the guy goes on
        report and gets banned for a game that's positive for his
        side.  His foul play probably saved the game for his side
        one week and next week they're allowed to start with a
        replacement.

        In the past, RL has proved itself innovative in its treatment
        of offenders and in its willingness to adopt new technology.
        The only way to really cure bad play is to punish the team.  
        This is the old "if nobody owns up then you're all getting
        punished" thing which tends to work although as a punishment
        I think it should be a last resort.  The difficult thing is,
        how to apply it?

        Despite all the hue and cry it might cause, I would say that
        as well as banning the player concerned, for the following
        game the team would have to play the first ten minutes with
        one of their number - chosen by the computer - in the sin bin.
        This might well cause the team to look upon foul play by one
        of their number as a bad thing, particularly if, rather than
        just suspicious incidents noticed by the referee going before
        the committee, any spotted by the video ref did too...   If
        a player was banned for five games then for five matches his
        teammates would be made to regret his action.  

        Thugs wouldn't last long in a sport which took their actions that
        seriously and it would actually encourage fair play.   OK,
        there might be a period when everybody tiptoed around the
        field like nancies but in the end  the game would be just as
        hard as before but deliberately taking someone's head off
        would no longer be a legitimate defensive option.  (Legitimate
        in the sense that you'll always get away with it.)

        We're talking professional sport here and what happened to
        Haigh is similar to Linford Christie tripping up the guy
        in the next lane so that he doesn't get beaten and then
        running in the winner!  And getting awarded the race.  It's
        quite crazy.  Jeez, some of these blokes their team is probably
        better off without anyway!  Mind you, the disciplinary committees
        will have to tighten up their act...

Southern Jessie

P.S.  "99" was the call which RU Lions captain Willie McBride introduced
on a tour to NZ (or was it SA?) whereby when the call was made each
Lion would thump the nearest opponent regardless of any other factor,
e.g. it was his best mate or they were swapping knitting patterns.
Apparently they did this once at the first sign of trouble and it worked
in that they didn't have too much bother on the field after that.  :-)

 
 
 

" I Don't Believe It"

Post by Paul Matthe » Wed, 11 Jun 1997 04:00:00

On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:06:09 +0200, David Covey

Quote:

>    Despite all the hue and cry it might cause, I would say that
>    as well as banning the player concerned, for the following
>    game the team would have to play the first ten minutes with
>    one of their number - chosen by the computer - in the sin bin.
>    This might well cause the team to look upon foul play by one
>    of their number as a bad thing, particularly if, rather than
>    just suspicious incidents noticed by the referee going before
>    the committee, any spotted by the video ref did too...   If
>    a player was banned for five games then for five matches his
>    teammates would be made to regret his action.  

Not a bad Idea, but the "picked by computer" bit would be open to
accusations of being fixed. Why not just ban the POSITION for 10 mins of
the next game. EG Cassidy (Wigan Second row) punches someone, they play
without a second row for 10 mins. If he had moved to prop and punches
someone, Wigan are without a Prop.

What about deducting league points from teams with a bad disciplinary
record. EG allocate 1 point for a yellow, 2 for a red, 3 for yellow card
offence that went unpunishes, 4 for red card offence unpunished, then
when a team gets say 10 points, the lose a point. What do you lot think
of that?

Paul Matthews
http://www.triton.u-net.com


 
 
 

" I Don't Believe It"

Post by Paul Matthe » Thu, 12 Jun 1997 04:00:00


Quote:
>I think some team may end up on negative points by the end of the season.
>And I think the clubs would never agree to it.

The same clubs that whinge that so-and-so threw a punch and should have been
sent off, they have not really suferred as a result of the punishment......

It would encourage clubs to condemn bad behavious from players. It was an idea
that would actually punish the club. we could als see more conversations like
this theoretical one with 5 mins to go, when the ref is talking to a "Wigford"
prop. When the club already have quite a few disciplinary points.

Ref:: "I didn't see for sure, bu it looked like you threw a punch, so I am
putting you on report"
Cap: "Could you give us a moment please?"

Cap&Prop huddle for a chat
Cap: "Did you REALLY throw a punch?"
Prop "You know ***y well I did, you held him for me"
Cap "I will suggest to the ref that he sin bin you for it"
Prop: "OK"

Back to ref
Cap: "My prop regrets that he did indeed throw a punch and suggests that you
sin bin him, such that he plays no further part in this game"

Wot A LARF!

Paul Matthews
http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

" I Don't Believe It"

Post by WiganRLf » Thu, 12 Jun 1997 04:00:00


Quote:
(Paul Matthews) writes:
>What about deducting league points from teams with a bad disciplinary
>record. EG allocate 1 point for a yellow, 2 for a red, 3 for yellow card
>offence that went unpunishes, 4 for red card offence unpunished, then
>when a team gets say 10 points, the lose a point. What do you lot think
>of that?

Saints would be relegated.  Gets my vote ;-).

Dave

Wigan RLFC - Simply THE Best.

 
 
 

" I Don't Believe It"

Post by C Foot » Mon, 16 Jun 1997 04:00:00



Quote:

> > Just read on text that Swann has got aone match ban for his GBH on
Haigh.
> > And to rub salt into the wound Auckland are considering an appeal.It
looks
> > like the worse the offence the lighter the sentence,

-heaps of further ***deleted-

It is obviously very hard to accept that your game is useless. Grow up and
live with it.