Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Cas to appeal and rightly so!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

#1 Outwoodtiger

Outwoodtiger
  • Players
  • 49 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 02:45 PM

Please read this:

http://www.castigers...icle.php?id=877

Its a stitch up, you other supporters of clubs should breathe a sighe of relief!

#2 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 02:57 PM

I assume that they are not disputing the fact that they didn't conduct a meaningful inquiry, which was another thing they were criticised for.

If they did everything right (which they clearly feel they did) then justice will be done.

I am not overly impressed with the statement tbh, but it is perhaps understandable as they are not happy with the decision.

Couple of issues:

Firstly, it is as though they are content to play the incident down, pointing out that it was quiet and only 15s in total. However, the stewards will have heard this, and would pick it up at the time better than the cameras, so I don;t feel that necessarily excuses them.

Secondly, the match commissioner issue. I don't see the relevance here. He didn't hear anything. With that in mind, why should he be dragged into the inquiry? It's as though they are saying there is no issue as he didn't hear anything. He is one man, and can't hear everything.

Thirdly, just because there was only one complaint doesn't make it alright, again they seem to be playing it down as not too serious based on only one complaint being received.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, they do not even mention the afterwards inquiry, so I assume they admit they weren't up to scratch there.

I'm not gonna get into the whole original fine again, just commenting on what I believe is a weak statement, and if that is the basis of their appeal, I am not too sure what kind of success they will have.

#3 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,905 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:01 PM

I wonder how much the legal fees compare to the 40k fine.

#4 Outwoodtiger

Outwoodtiger
  • Players
  • 49 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:05 PM

QUOTE (shrek @ Jul 2 2010, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I wonder how much the legal fees compare to the 40k fine.


I reckon he'll do it for free for the total injustice and the obvious RFL stitch up!!


#5 Outwoodtiger

Outwoodtiger
  • Players
  • 49 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:07 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 2 2010, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I assume that they are not disputing the fact that they didn't conduct a meaningful inquiry, which was another thing they were criticised for.

If they did everything right (which they clearly feel they did) then justice will be done.

I am not overly impressed with the statement tbh, but it is perhaps understandable as they are not happy with the decision.

Couple of issues:

Firstly, it is as though they are content to play the incident down, pointing out that it was quiet and only 15s in total. However, the stewards will have heard this, and would pick it up at the time better than the cameras, so I don;t feel that necessarily excuses them.

Secondly, the match commissioner issue. I don't see the relevance here. He didn't hear anything. With that in mind, why should he be dragged into the inquiry? It's as though they are saying there is no issue as he didn't hear anything. He is one man, and can't hear everything.

Thirdly, just because there was only one complaint doesn't make it alright, again they seem to be playing it down as not too serious based on only one complaint being received.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, they do not even mention the afterwards inquiry, so I assume they admit they weren't up to scratch there.

I'm not gonna get into the whole original fine again, just commenting on what I believe is a weak statement, and if that is the basis of their appeal, I am not too sure what kind of success they will have.


Well it seems pretty compelling to me, but my brain is obviously not as big as yours to see all the holes in the statement............ah well!!!

#6 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:07 PM

QUOTE (Outwoodtiger @ Jul 2 2010, 04:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I reckon he'll do it for free for the total injustice and the obvious RFL stitch up!!
laugh.gif Yep, cos that's how lawyers work! When they think someone is innocent they give them freebies!!!


#7 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,994 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:09 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 2 2010, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
laugh.gif Yep, cos that's how lawyers work! When they think someone is innocent they give them freebies!!!


Rod Findlay might as he was pretty aggrieved with the RFL over some things that happened when he owned Gateshead Thunder.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#8 Outwoodtiger

Outwoodtiger
  • Players
  • 49 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:10 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 2 2010, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
laugh.gif Yep, cos that's how lawyers work! When they think someone is innocent they give them freebies!!!


Obviously it was a joke FFS!!


#9 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:10 PM

QUOTE (Derwent @ Jul 2 2010, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Rod Findlay might as he was pretty aggrieved with the RFL over some things that happened when he owned Gateshead Thunder.
Either way, I'll bet he isn't doing this for free.


#10 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:11 PM

QUOTE (Outwoodtiger @ Jul 2 2010, 04:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Obviously it was a joke FFS!!

biggrin.gif Apologies, obviously I haven't got used to your posting style yet, maybe the odd smiley would help!

#11 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,994 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:12 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 2 2010, 04:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Either way, I'll bet he isn't doing this for free.


Probably not, but I'd assume that if Cas win then the RFL will be liable for all costs.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#12 sallywt

sallywt
  • Coach
  • 510 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:12 PM

The bit about the MC not being called to give evidence is absolute rubbish. He was called and explained to them that he hadn't heard it but then he was standing in the tunnel area and there was a lot going on around him to drown out any external noise.

#13 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:16 PM

QUOTE (sallywt @ Jul 2 2010, 04:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The bit about the MC not being called to give evidence is absolute rubbish. He was called and explained to them that he hadn't heard it but then he was standing in the tunnel area and there was a lot going on around him to drown out any external noise.
This is one of the key areas that concerns me about their statement. They are making out it was some kind of travesty that a person who had heard or seen nothing wasn't called as a witness!

Ref's miss all sorts on the field but people still get cited for things afterwards. Do people who subsequently get banned then call the ref to their defence in the appeal because he didn;t see anything, so therefore he hadn't done anyting?


#14 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 41,502 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:27 PM

QUOTE (sallywt @ Jul 2 2010, 04:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The bit about the MC not being called to give evidence is absolute rubbish. He was called and explained to them that he hadn't heard it but then he was standing in the tunnel area and there was a lot going on around him to drown out any external noise.

well that's the first hole blown in the game day operating procedure for a start, and at the same time the club's statement regarding dealing with chanting.

The match day announcer is a very important part of a club's afety procedures. That is why clubs have a pitchside MC and a stadium announcer in a box/control room.
What if it hadn't been homophobic chanting instead a fire(even more important considering the nature of the ground), or someone taken seriously ill, or something like that. The stadium announcer's role is vital in such situations as a line of communication to the crowd. What you say is not only not an excuse, but calls into question the way that game day is run at the club.
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#15 sallywt

sallywt
  • Coach
  • 510 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:46 PM

QUOTE (l'angelo mysterioso @ Jul 2 2010, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
well that's the first hole blown in the game day operating procedure for a start, and at the same time the club's statement regarding dealing with chanting.

The match day announcer is a very important part of a club's afety procedures. That is why clubs have a pitchside MC and a stadium announcer in a box/control room.
What if it hadn't been homophobic chanting instead a fire(even more important considering the nature of the ground), or someone taken seriously ill, or something like that. The stadium announcer's role is vital in such situations as a line of communication to the crowd. What you say is not only not an excuse, but calls into question the way that game day is run at the club.


The MC (match commissioner) is there working for the RFL not the club. He is there to smooth things between the match officials and the club and to make sure that game day quidelines are in place. The club have their own safety officer and their own pitch side announcer something completely different.

#16 Agbrigg

Agbrigg
  • Coach
  • 899 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:53 PM

QUOTE (sallywt @ Jul 2 2010, 04:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The MC (match commissioner) is there working for the RFL not the club. He is there to smooth things between the match officials and the club and to make sure that game day quidelines are in place. The club have their own safety officer and their own pitch side announcer something completely different.



Angelo has got confused with his MC's

#17 Outwoodtiger

Outwoodtiger
  • Players
  • 49 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:54 PM

QUOTE (l'angelo mysterioso @ Jul 2 2010, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
well that's the first hole blown in the game day operating procedure for a start, and at the same time the club's statement regarding dealing with chanting.

The match day announcer is a very important part of a club's afety procedures. That is why clubs have a pitchside MC and a stadium announcer in a box/control room.
What if it hadn't been homophobic chanting instead a fire(even more important considering the nature of the ground), or someone taken seriously ill, or something like that. The stadium announcer's role is vital in such situations as a line of communication to the crowd. What you say is not only not an excuse, but calls into question the way that game day is run at the club.


I don't think you understand what is meant by the MC, in this case we are not talking about the Master Of Ceremonies LOL!!

In fact our MC never shuts up communicating with the crowd when your trying to have a chat with yer mate, he's a bloody pain in the butt TBH.

Nothing wrong with our game day crowd communication............we always know when someone parked wrongly on wheldon road ...........about 50 blumming times LOL!!

#18 Agbrigg

Agbrigg
  • Coach
  • 899 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 04:01 PM

QUOTE (Outwoodtiger @ Jul 2 2010, 04:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In fact our MC never shuts up communicating with the crowd when your trying to have a chat with yer mate, he's a bloody pain in the butt TBH.


Is that good old Darren you are talking about biggrin.gif

Happy days when he left Wakey laugh.gif

#19 Outwoodtiger

Outwoodtiger
  • Players
  • 49 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 04:29 PM

QUOTE (Agbrigg @ Jul 2 2010, 05:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Is that good old Darren you are talking about biggrin.gif

Happy days when he left Wakey laugh.gif


Yeh.............Bless Him, although he did get Mutya Buena darn't lane, she were a decent turn!!!!LOL

#20 Outwoodtiger

Outwoodtiger
  • Players
  • 49 posts

Posted 02 July 2010 - 04:34 PM

i belive we have a good case against gareth thomas,the more i read and listen it is pretty clear that both he and emanuelle palidino (His Agent) have an hidden agenda and imho that is money and a career in the media for thomas, which utterly disgusts me that a man who potrays himself has a victim but is merely out for personal gain and he doesnt care who he treads on to get it.

Just an opinion, i still do not condone any type of abuse.