I haven't seen either tackle (but perhaps this makes me more objective and is not a bad thing...) However, in the petition rationale it says;



"To prove his point, the Hull KR chairman compared the dangerous throw by three Widnes players on Richard Whiting, and the less dangerous throw by Justin Poore. The three Widnes players were let off with a caution, as the disciplinary committee couldn't determine a culprit, however Justin was banned for three games."



Doesn't this contradict the motion argued? I mean, you are saying 'the three Widnes players were let off with a caution as the disciplinary committee couldn't determine a culprit'. I'm guessing that Poore was the only one involved in his throw - presumably if he was one of three, they'd have done nothing for similar reasons as outlines with Widnes in your arguement.



It is easier to punish one player responsible for a less dangerous event than to determine which one(s) of three are responsible for a more dangerous tackle, if they all did so at the same time.



If Poore was 'one of three' and has been made to take the flak for all of them it is different, but the way the motion is worded suggests he was alone in commiting the offence for which he is charged. If i am wrong, i apologise.



As it stands though (as worded by you / the person filing the motion) it sounds like they have actually shown consistency...

Quote Jamie101="Jamie101"I haven't seen either tackle (but perhaps this makes me more objective and is not a bad thing...) As it stands though (as worded by you / the person filing the motion) it sounds like they have actually shown consistency...'" You probably should have had a look at the two tackles before you typed all this. Might have saved some time and quite a lot of speculation. This will help. www.hullkr.co.uk/club/news/artic ... e-Chairman

Quote Jamie101="Jamie101"I haven't seen either tackle (but perhaps this makes me more objective and is not a bad thing...) As it stands though (as worded by you / the person filing the motion) it sounds like they have actually shown consistency...'" You probably should have had a look at the two tackles before you typed all this. Might have saved some time and quite a lot of speculation. This will help. www.hullkr.co.uk/club/news/artic ... e-Chairman

Quote DHM="DHM"You probably should have had a look at the two tackles before you typed all this. Might have saved some time and quite a lot of speculation. This will help. www.hullkr.co.uk/club/news/artic ... e-Chairman'" Actually, having just viewed the 2 incidents, I can see why different punishments were levied. I certainly can't agree with Hudgell that the Whiting one is far worse. If anything the Poore one is worse. Whiting is tipped onto his head whereas Poore drives the player into the ground. I can certainly see why Poore was given a 3 game ban, especially given his record. Personally I'd have given the Widnes players a 1 game ban rather than a caution, but it's hardly the injustice of the century.

Quote DHM="DHM"You probably should have had a look at the two tackles before you typed all this. Might have saved some time and quite a lot of speculation. This will help. www.hullkr.co.uk/club/news/artic ... e-Chairman'" Actually, having just viewed the 2 incidents, I can see why different punishments were levied. I certainly can't agree with Hudgell that the Whiting one is far worse. If anything the Poore one is worse. Whiting is tipped onto his head whereas Poore drives the player into the ground. I can certainly see why Poore was given a 3 game ban, especially given his record. Personally I'd have given the Widnes players a 1 game ban rather than a caution, but it's hardly the injustice of the century.

I know which impact I would prefer, and I have been on the end of a pretty horrific spear tackle. The Widnes players lift Whiting verticle and then allow him to smash head first into the ground - first mistake is the lift and then they are negligent in allowing him to crash into the turf.

Poore lifts the legs - and this is where I disagree with you - and then tries to control the landing - which ends with the player nearly horizontal.



Both are clumsy and should be discouraged, but for the disciplinary to not levy any punishment on the Widnes players because they "can't identify" a culprit is nonsense. Two clearly identifiable Widnes players lift Whiting's legs and then let go when he's in the air.

As i said on the other thread, Poore isnt punished for the players impact with the ground but with for what he does after, which is to lift the legs higher and use his body to drive the player down into the ground. It was a deliberate 2nd effort.



The Whiting one was a poorly executed tackle, it was clumsy and should be punished on the field, However how could you blame a player for it? The parallel or Poore in that situation wasn’t even in contact with the player when he fell, the other two simply executed a tackle as normal except all of a sudden the player they were pushing over was suddenly rotating.

Yep I read it. Don't agree with any of that either.

Well the RFL do so.........

A lot of this comes down to trying to assess what a player's intentions were. Which is difficult, but that's what disciplinary panels try to do. We can see above that two people can view the excat same footage and see different things. That's why the disciplinary has to be a subjective process, because there is no black-and-white right and wrong answer.



To me, the Poore tackle doesn't look like trying to control a landing, it looks like a definite move to drive the player towards the ground.



The Whiting one looks more careless, he is upended and lands in one motion.



So for consistency, there's no real consistency to be had in my opinion because they are not the same incident.



Personally, I would like to see all 3 Widnes players punished. I didn't see much malice there, but I do see some recklessness and some irresponsibility, which I would like to see the RFL act on more strongly.



But that's a change of policy, not a consistency issue.



So, I disagree with Neil Hudgell, and I wouldn't want him representing me in court with that approach.



Furthermore, even if I disagree, this sort of grandstanding is absolutely and completely the wrong way to be going about things. There was no negative press about the RFL disciplinary around the incident until he created it. The only person whose actions are at risk of damaging the credibility and reputation of the sport is Neil Hudgell.



I think we should start a petition calling for him to be publically slapped round the face with a large haddock in front of the TV cameras at Sunday's televised Challenge Cup game.



I bet we could get more than 50 signatures on that, and I think it would attract new audiences to our sport. Look hpw many people used to turn up to public punishments as entertainment in medievil times.



Think about it.