Ahhh the old tinfoil hat argument. Good one.



Just every other walk of life you're asked to explain yourself & ALL the evidence is reviewed before a charge is made. Not, we've got some stuff that paints the picture we want and we'll not bother with any other due diligence on this one.



Great process, but nope it's me and my tinfoil hat.

Not exactly

The time between the charge and the trial is when evidence is gathered and the TRIAL is where the evidence is supplied.



They had enough evidence to charge him, he's then supplied the evidence that has satisfied them he isn't guilty



I'm not totally against your current stance on refs, but currently your masking your valid points with rants against refs/officials/rfl at every opportunity imo



Whether you agree with the process or not, it is what it is, and they've followed it.

They haven't backed down, they haven't been called out for their BS as you put it.

Theyve just followed the process

Got it in one. Rarely do you see someone regularly talk so confidently about something they understand so little about.

Not dragging this on, but I have no doubt they've followed the process. It's just the process is a rigged game imo. One that leans towards protecting their own. That's the heart of all my arguments when if comes to them.



Before you are charged, you at least are interviewed and asked to give a statement. Ironically, in this situation that could have solved this whole issue days ago i.e if they'd just asked JB for a statement. If they'd have done that then you'd have hope they'd have found the same as the tribunal. That in turn let's us focus on the match etc.



As a side note, we've established that the ref got it wrong on the night. The lack of an apology speaks volumes about that organisation imo. Use Isa as an example of owning your actions, he's publicly apologised for not getting it right. Will Kendall do the same?

I don't know, we do have to listen to your opinions on a number of rugby related issues.



You not gonna say anything about your boys getting it wrong and sending JB to the bin? Funny how earlier in the season you'd be happy to slate the performance of Hanley, but stay quiet when your a ref has a shocker.

Isa should have had a red, dead wrong and the appointments reflect that (presume you haven't looked because it doesn't suit your agenda to note that officials are regularly dropped based on performance). There's three officials who should have picked that forearm up. All pay for it this week because of one moment in one game. It's the equivalent of Hanley getting dropped the first time one of his errors cost us points (but as we know it actually generally took weeks of staying at the top of the league for 'errors made' for Hanley to be dropped, I digress).



Hard to know on the Bateman one, we don't have the facts and there may well be little/no evidence to go off, especially as my understanding is that his defence was about who the abuse was directed towards rather than whether it was said at all.



One of many things you don't seem to grasp is that it's not just all 'the RFL'. The on field officials and the disciplinary panel are totally separate. Different people, don't meet or train together or anything like that. In fact you could make a strong argument that they aren't aligned because of this. We don't know who was right, and the outcome doesn't necessarily mean the parties disagree. He may well have said something that was worth a sin bin, but wasn't worth a ban on top of that.



This is an interesting one for you to square up. When you haven't been encouraging people to assault referees, you have banged on about how they can't possibly make decisions because they haven't played at a high level. Here you have an ex-academy player ref, one of the touch judges previously playing at a decent level, and the disciplinary panel made up of ex-SL players. How can they possibly be wrong?

I'd say let's not look a gift horse in the mouth there.

Shorrocks at 9 again, Field starts at 1, Bullock dropped from 17

I guess we should have a comp: guess how many minutes Bourouh plays.





WTAF with Bullock?

I’m not sure Harry Smith could look less interested…in 8 minutes he’s left the opportunity to challenge a high kick (actually ran past the ball) give a hospital pass in own 20, not even tried to catch an intercept, and let an (albeit poor) pass go on the floor.



Put simply…he looks like he can’t be d.

Well

As an opinion thats rubbish



As.fact half of it is untrue



But carry on

If we get another no7 we will be miles better is what you mean, not that our coach is clueless

There's no depth or shape in our attack - just a straight static line. Trying hard but just no cutting edge.