HavenFans.co.uk - The Unofficial Whitehaven RLFC Forum

The end of the 'bull' or is it

Offline shavenhaven

  • Academy Star
  • **
    • Posts: 272
Reply #15 on: 19 Sep 2007, 05:29:51 pm
Dispite taking into account his exemplary record.  Remember the Bulls player who got 3 games then has them all wiped off on appeal because of his previous exemplary record.  Lets see what happens to Bull.  He deserves better than this wipe it out and lets the guy play out his career on the pitch. >:( >:(

Bull did a bad tackle and was rightly banned, no matter what his record is the fact is he done a bad dangerous tackle.
You would be the 1st one complaining if the same thing happened the othwer way round and it was a Haven player who was tackled high.
Sad he has been banned but he done the tackle so he should get the ban


Offline whitehavenRLforever

  • Top Try Scorer
  • ******
    • Posts: 4148
Reply #16 on: 19 Sep 2007, 06:38:13 pm
Dispite taking into account his exemplary record.  Remember the Bulls player who got 3 games then has them all wiped off on appeal because of his previous exemplary record.  Lets see what happens to Bull.  He deserves better than this wipe it out and lets the guy play out his career on the pitch. >:( >:(

Bull did a bad tackle and was rightly banned, no matter what his record is the fact is he done a bad dangerous tackle.
You would be the 1st one complaining if the same thing happened the othwer way round and it was a Haven player who was tackled high.
Sad he has been banned but he done the tackle so he should get the ban

As  much  as  I  hate  to  say  it  I  agree.  whether  there's  enough  time  to  appeal I'm  not  sure.  Still  we  can  always  keep  fingers  crossed.  He'll  be  available  for  the  final ;D


Offline Maca

  • Top Try Scorer
  • ******
    • Posts: 3437
Reply #17 on: 19 Sep 2007, 07:00:24 pm
I dont think he has been given a new contact for next season.


Offline toddy

  • Academy Star
  • **
    • Posts: 145
Reply #18 on: 19 Sep 2007, 10:04:58 pm
Dispite taking into account his exemplary record.  Remember the Bulls player who got 3 games then has them all wiped off on appeal because of his previous exemplary record.  Lets see what happens to Bull.  He deserves better than this wipe it out and lets the guy play out his career on the pitch. >:( >:(

Bull did a bad tackle and was rightly banned, no matter what his record is the fact is he done a bad dangerous tackle.
You would be the 1st one complaining if the same thing happened the othwer way round and it was a Haven player who was tackled high.
Sad he has been banned but he done the tackle so he should get the ban

Of course it makes a difference if you have previous exemplary record and about to retire. It shows the game is really turning into a girls game. Is the other player in hospital?? If not, give him some magic water and forget about it! ;D

Hard to keep them all low tackles when he is one of the biggest players in the game and there are some midgets around! ;D Bit different if the players 4 foot tall and head highs a 6'6 player that he has to jump just to touch his neck ;D

I cant see making the finals without him unfortunately, can only hope.


Offline LeeF

  • First Team Regular
  • ****
    • Posts: 1578
Reply #19 on: 20 Sep 2007, 09:46:53 pm
Here are the RFL's verdicts

Wednesday 19 September 2007


Appeal by Steve Trindall of Whitehaven against the severity of sentence (2 matches and ?100 fine) imposed by the Disciplinary Committee on Tuesday 18th September 2007 for striking in the Whitehaven v Leigh Centurions match played on the 13th September 2007

In attendance ? Dave Rotheram, Head Coach

Adjudication:
The Committee have anxiously considered this matter and noted that player Trindall pleaded guilty to an offence of striking. It has been described as being a more clumsy action but nevertheless the opponent was struck with the forearm in the face. The Committee were of the opinion that any such action of contact with the head of an opponent has the potential for serious injury. Thankfully, this was not the case. The Committee gave player Trindall credit for his previous good disciplinary record but this type of misconduct could not be overlooked. The Committee felt that a two match suspension and a ?100 fine was the appropriate penalty and as such, dismissed the appeal.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Appeal by Shaun Lunt of Workington Town against the finding of guilt and severity of sentence (4 matches and ?75 fine) imposed by the Disciplinary Committee on Tuesday 18th September 2007 for biting in the Workington Town v York City Knights match played on the 16th September 2007

By telephone ? Les Ashe, Coach and Mark Friar, Director of Football


Adjudication:
The Committee have considered this matter very carefully and viewed the DVD several times. It is apparent and can be seen clearly that after the tackle the touch judge immediately enters the field of play to report the incident. The player can also be seen clearly to pull his arm away from the tackle and the opponent?s head area and then show it to the officials. The Committee have taken into account the officials reports on the incident as to what the player said and what was seen. The Committee noted that the player refuted the conversation with the referee and took note of the letter from the opponent. Taking into consideration all these circumstances, the Committee were satisfied that player Lunt did bite his opponent. As rightly pointed out, this is a serious matter of misconduct which attracts a serious penalty. The Committee felt the finding of guilt and the penalty of four matches and fine of ?75 were appropriate and the appeal was dismissed.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tuesday 18 September 2007


Player: Steve Trindall (Whitehaven)
Opponents: Leigh Centurions
Referee: I Smith
Adjudication: The Committee studied the DVD carefully and took into account the players admission of guilt and credit was given for this. The Committee also took into account the players? good disciplinary record since 2003 and again credit was given for this. However, striking is a serious matter of misconduct. This was a dangerous strike to the head of an opponent. Fortunately, it did not result in any serious injury. Taking into account all the circumstances, the Committee felt that the appropriate penalty was one of a two match suspension and a fine of ?100.


 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Player: Shaun Lunt (Workington Town)
Opponents: York City Knights
Referee: J Leahy
Adjudication: The Committee took on board the serious nature of an allegation of biting and are careful about the approach to such an allegation of misconduct. Both the officials reports of the incident have been taken into account. The Committee noted the conversation recorded by the referee and the record of a bite mark by the touch judge. The Committee have watched the DVD carefully on several occasions and noted that the touch judge entered the field of play when he saw the incident. It can be seen clearly that the opponent pulls his forearm away from player Lunt and then when play is stopped, points to his forearm when the touch judge enters the field. The Committee have taken into account a letter and its contents from the opposing player but feel the contents of the letter are contrary to the weight of the other evidence available. The Committee felt that this letter may have been written in a sense of false loyalty. The Committee were satisfied that an offence of biting was made out. Biting is a serious matter which cannot be tolerated and attracts a severe penalty. The Committee took into account the players previous good disciplinary record and as such, are able to reduce the penalty to one of a four match suspension and a ?75 fine.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Player: Taani Lavulavu (Workington Town)
Opponents: York City Knights
Referee: J Leahy
Adjudication: The Committee viewed the DVD and took into account the officials report that the player was dismissed for persistent high tackling throughout the game. The Committee were satisfied that misconduct was made out in this instance when the arm came into contact with the opponents head but were satisfied there was no intent or malice involved. There was no injury and this tackle was described as being at the very lower end of a careless high tackle. The Committee felt that the appropriate verdict was sending off sufficient


Offline toddy

  • Academy Star
  • **
    • Posts: 145
Reply #20 on: 20 Sep 2007, 11:58:41 pm
Pretty obvious it was not a committee of ex players or peers, who in there right mind would give a player of good reputation a 2 match ban when they are the last one his long career in rugby league.There is some nasty words i would have yelled at them if i was him, i am surprised they don't make the players front up to them in pink tutus, seeing thats the way they expect them to play.
Wish it was the  NRL, then he wouldn't even have had to front the committee at finals time for it.

Lets get behind the lads to get them into the Grand final so he can play his last game for Haven.


Offline Full80mins

  • Academy Star
  • **
    • Posts: 372
Reply #21 on: 21 Sep 2007, 03:32:55 pm
You can guarantee that, if Bull was playing for saints or wigan, he would've walked away with one match maximum and more likely a slap on the wrist.
 >:(