www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/r ... 5219088.jp Agree with him 100%.

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/r ... 5219088.jp Agree with him 100%.

Do you really? A large proportion of that article is absolute nonsense.

Does he actually say anything? The only opinon he offers is the no-brainer that cases like this damage the image of the game. He doesn't give any indication of what he thinks should have happened.

A whole article that basically says very little, that I can see.

"So what's the difference between Hayward and Pryce, Reardon or Cockayne? Cynics will argue it's the fact that he was a second team player and not an established Super League star."

Cynics may indeed argue that, but people with half a brain will detect an eeny weeny difference between what Pryce has done and what the others did.

I bet you do. I like this statement best:

[iLeeds Rhinos' Chev Walker and Ryan Bailey were jailed following an assault case in 2003 – a ruling which seemed harsh at the time and looks even more so in hindsight. [/i



Pryce pushes a bloke so he should be strung up, yet Bailey actually punches a bloke but his jail term now appears harsh?!? Leeds do feck all about Walker and Bailey but Saints are supposed to suspend/fire Pryce for far less of a crime?

Get real. Never read such a biased load of tabloid crock in my life.

although he wasn't a saint's player at the time i bet you didn't take that view when he pushed a glass into someone's face for having the audacity to have a joke with him? that same bloke has now sadly passed away, and i know at the time noble wanted to sack him but was over ruled by the bulls board.

I genuinely didn't care what action Bradford took - it was a criminal case outside of the club's control and dealt with accordingly by the courts.

Nor did I care that Feka wasn't banned and I can't remember what Leeds did with their lot.

Problems on a pitch - RFL/club's call. Problems outside - law's call.

Simples.

FWIW I would have banned him from playing for Saints for a few weeks but not because I think he deserves it - just to shut up whining sensasionalists like this journalist mug.

Who actually cares?

Smith basically says nothing at all and do we really think stuff like this ''tarnishes the game''?



People just shrug their shoulders, they don't pick up on things like this and think ''look look rugby league is for thugs blah blah''

Hell worse happens in football practically every week, rape allegations, sex orgies, players beating up pedestrians in mcdonalds, does that mean everyone boycotts football?

So in conclusion, the ruling on pryce was fair, the way saints have dealt with it is no different to any other top clubs (leeds with walker and bailey), and stuff like this doesn't really tarnish the game because the majority of the population don't give a sh*t and similiar stuff happens in countless other sports week by week.

What a breathtaking article by smith, it says, err, nothing at all really.

Ignoring the current case at issue, which has been discussed ad-nauseum already, I don't think the issue is quite as "simples" as that. There is an issue which the sport and the club have discretion in addressing in terms of employees bringing their organisation or profession into disrepute.

My starting point for this sort of thing is always one of not believing professional sports stars should be subject to any different rules than the rest of us. In this instance, I think I, and many other people I know, would be very fortunate to retain my job if I was convicted of assault. I would also probably lose my professional registrations, with which there are parallels, even if not direct comparisons, with a professional RL player.

I'm not commenting specifically on the Prycegate incident, or even saying that these kinds of things should automatically result in censure in their working life, but it is a consideration, and not as simple as "work is work, everything else is law."

Its like that every week though isnt it?

The major difference of course is that you or I are, I would suspect, much more replaceable than the current Great Britain stand-off, irrespective of our level of professional qualifications.

It's more of a no-brainer for an employer to show us the door when they have much less to lose, even though our conviction may not even be public knowledge never mind tarnishing the image of our employers.

Now that I think about it, yeah. Just seems to explain the obvious inabit of detail.