What's being asked for here isn't a "punishment to fit the crime" but a "punishment to fit the result"

Whilst the three match ban for that tackle seems weak, the crime was a high tackle with an elbow, not breaking a players jaw.

Looked to me like a straight elbow to the jaw, with no attempt at a tackle or shoulder charge.

Quote Richie="Richie"the crime was a high tackle with an elbow'" Well, first contact appeared to be with his upper arm, not elbow and that is also what the RFL saw: www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3553 If it was a straight out & out elbow like what McGoldrick did when he was the ball carrier, then I'd agree with you 3 matches isn't enough. However, Chase has got 3 matches for the same offence Sam Moa got 1 game for.

Quote Richie="Richie"the crime was a high tackle with an elbow'" Well, first contact appeared to be with his upper arm, not elbow and that is also what the RFL saw: www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3553 If it was a straight out & out elbow like what McGoldrick did when he was the ball carrier, then I'd agree with you 3 matches isn't enough. However, Chase has got 3 matches for the same offence Sam Moa got 1 game for.

I think this perhaps is more like one for Sherlock Holmes

so cas arent vicariously liable for chases' actions? On what basis do you consider [iMattis v Pollock[/i wont apply? Or prehaps you dont know what your talking about. For the record the RFL have a PL policy which covers all member clubs but it would be Cas who would be the defendants. it would be unlikley Cas' insurers would seek indemnity from chase even if he has a reasonable actions clause written into his contract. as a rule insurers dont seek to recover from the negligent employee unless the actions are considered reckless or their has been collusion.

[size=170TAXI[/size

Quote Gronk!="Gronk!"Well, first contact appeared to be with his upper arm, not elbow and that is also what the RFL saw: www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3553 If it was a straight out & out elbow like what McGoldrick did when he was the ball carrier, then I'd agree with you 3 matches isn't enough. However, Chase has got 3 matches for the same offence Sam Moa got 1 game for.'" i am the only one who missed the game were Moa jumped into a tackle leading with his elbow (forearm if you're very lenient)?

Quote Gronk!="Gronk!"Well, first contact appeared to be with his upper arm, not elbow and that is also what the RFL saw: www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3553 If it was a straight out & out elbow like what McGoldrick did when he was the ball carrier, then I'd agree with you 3 matches isn't enough. However, Chase has got 3 matches for the same offence Sam Moa got 1 game for.'" i am the only one who missed the game were Moa jumped into a tackle leading with his elbow (forearm if you're very lenient)?

Didn't Robbie Mears get damages from Sunny Nickle for a broken face?



Also if its a case of you are out aslong as the injuryed player, what would be the case if Ropati was fine? Same hit but resulted in no injury, would Chase have got a 0 game ban?

That's one of many problems with that concept.



David Howell didn't injure anyone when he bit them, does that mean he shouldn't have been banned?

Gareth Hock didn't injure anyone when he gouged them, so I guess that didn't deserve a ban either?

Paul Moriarty received an 8 match ban (Hugh Waddell missed the following 4 Leeds matches.)







Andy Dannatt received an 8 match ban (Ellery Hanley missed the following 13 Leeds matches.)

Oh God you've unleashed that Gronk gomper on our board now!

So do we conclude that the RFl has become totally spineless over the years, or is it down to them being more able to judge on the basis of video evidence? I suspect it may be a bit of both.



What I am convinced of is that if this had happened in the NRL or Yawnion the ban would have been closer to the 8 matches that used to be par for this sort of offence.