Salford City Reds docked two competition points

[League Express]

Salford City Reds have been docked two competition points and fined £5,000 by an RFL Operational Rules Appeals Tribunal for fielding 14 players during a Super League fixture against Castleford Tigers on Saturday April 27.

The Tribunal handed down the increased sanction after rejecting Salford’s appeal against the original fine of £10,000 imposed at a hearing on May 8.

Click here to view the article

[Viking Warrior]

another own goal for koukash.......

[MrPosh]

another own goal for koukash.......

Why? Was he the 14th player?

[Viking Warrior]

should have kept shut and took the fine, other clubs have been docked points in the past for the same misdemeanour, and a fine was arguably the better of the two options.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

should have kept shut and took the fine, other clubs have been docked points in the past for the same misdemeanour, and a fine was arguably the better of the two options.

In what way was koukash complicit in the offence

In what way was he instrumental in the nature of the punishment?

[amm]

Stinks of willy wagging all this - people on both sides with one style of management, and can't adapt it, at logger heads

 

Absolutely embarrassing that it's in the media on a big game day

 

Koukash will no doubt take it personal and we'll have more red top shizezen

 

And the RFL, who I try and back, have really aggravated me with this and their unprofessional mishandling of it  - ok we get the picture you won't be dictated to by one clubs owner - and maybe (yeah right) it's the pulling of strings by other CEO's, but please  can we have some people who earn their fat salaries and can stand up to them, and manage these issues without turning it into a circus.

Edited June 14, 2013 by amh

[Viking Warrior]

In what way was koukash complicit in the offence

In what way was he instrumental in the nature of the punishment?

i'm on about the appeal chris, koukash was obviously complicit in that process. if they had took the fine then the hard fought points from one of the games they have won would still have been in the bag.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

i'm on about the appeal chris, koukash was obviously complicit in that process. if they had took the fine then the hard fought points from one of the games they have won would still have been in the bag.

Thanks: you are right. There comes a time to keep your head down

[Derwent]

A points deduction is pretty meaningless anyway, it's not like they can be relegated because of it.

[Southstander13]

Stinks of willy wagging all this - people on both sides with one style of management, and can't adapt it, at logger heads

 

Absolutely embarrassing that it's in the media on a big game day

 

Koukash will no doubt take it personal and we'll have more red top shizezen

 

And the RFL, who I try and back, have really aggravated me with this and their unprofessional mishandling of it  - ok we get the picture you won't be dictated to by one clubs owner - and maybe (yeah right) it's the pulling of strings by other CEO's, but please  can we have some people who earn their fat salaries and can stand up to them, and manage these issues without turning it into a circus.

 

I dont understand your criticism of the RFL in this. They would have had an option of docking points originally and decided against it and instead imposed a fine. Salford then appealed against the fine, at which point the RFL decide that having appealed against what many thought may have been a lenient decision, they will dock them two points.

 

Seems fair to me.

[amm]

I dont understand your criticism of the RFL in this. They would have had an option of docking points originally and decided against it and instead imposed a fine. Salford then appealed against the fine, at which point the RFL decide that having appealed against what many thought may have been a lenient decision, they will dock them two points.

 

Seems fair to me.

 I personally think they should and could have managed the matter more professionally. If it comes out that they tried over and over to do that and it is Koukash that has forced the issue then fair enough, but even then, did it have to come out today?

[Southstander13]

 I personally think they should and could have managed the matter more professionally. If it comes out that they tried over and over to do that and it is Koukash that has forced the issue then fair enough, but even then, did it have to come out today?

 I think I'm struggling to see where they were unprofessional. They made an initial decision. This decision was appealed against by Salford. The appeal was heard, dismissed and a revised punishment was given.

 

Sounds quite professional to me and is the kind of thing that regularly happens in relation to player bans where they appeal against a decision, only to have an extra game added to the ban because they appealed.

 

Timing wise its not great I agree but it has to come out sometimes

Edited June 14, 2013 by Southstander13

[Old Frightful]

I bet Saints are pleased that they didn"t appeal against the four and sixpence fine they incurred for exactly the same offence against Hull FC a few years earlier.

[Saintslass]

I dont understand your criticism of the RFL in this. They would have had an option of docking points originally and decided against it and instead imposed a fine. Salford then appealed against the fine, at which point the RFL decide that having appealed against what many thought may have been a lenient decision, they will dock them two points.

 

Seems fair to me.

But why then not only dock the points but still fine them £5000?  Just for appealing!  Is nobody allowed to appeal?  The RFL simply needed to adjudge that the fine was upheld.  They didn't need to get all spiteful and ridiculous and make the punishment worse.  That just smacks of vindictiveness and makes the sport look bad.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

A points deduction is pretty meaningless anyway, it's not like they can be relegated because of it.

Particularly given that they've no chance of the playoffs - all this means is that the fine's been halved.

[gingerjon]

But why then not only dock the points but still fine them £5000?  Just for appealing!  Is nobody allowed to appeal?  The RFL simply needed to adjudge that the fine was upheld.  They didn't need to get all spiteful and ridiculous and make the punishment worse.  That just smacks of vindictiveness and makes the sport look bad.

 

Quite a few sports organisations (the FA is one, the RFU another) will add to a punishment if they deem that an appeal is frivolous or simply done for the sake of it.

[Larry the Leit]

Particularly given that they've no chance of the playoffs - all this means is that the fine's been halved.

 

On the face of it, it looks that way.  Does the RFL pay prize money for each place like the Premier League does?

[South Wakefield Sharks]

Think the RFL have handled this way. It's usual to be given a more severe punishment if you appeal and fail. Otherwise everyone would appeal everything and waste huge amounts of resources for no purpose.

[amm]

 I think I'm struggling to see where they were unprofessional. They made an initial decision. This decision was appealed against by Salford. The appeal was heard, dismissed and a revised punishment was given.

 

Sounds quite professional to me and is the kind of thing that regularly happens in relation to player bans where they appeal against a decision, only to have an extra game added to the ban because they appealed.

 

Timing wise its not great I agree but it has to come out sometimes

Do you not think a good manager could handle the likes of Koukash better? Yes they have stuck to the rule book and not done anything outside the appeals process, so maybe my choice of using unprofessional is incorrect - should have said inept maybe.

 

As a team leader on £20K I could handle people better - so as these people have been employed for their experience and management skills such as the ability to negotiate , and paid accordingly, I expect better. Maybe I'm totally wrong, it's just an opinion.

 

I do think it looks petty too - now that is unprofessional 

Edited June 14, 2013 by amh

[Griff]

I'm just wondering about the fine the interchange official got. Not seen that mentioned.

There is a procedure for making substitutions. It wasn't followed, obviously, and I haven't seen any detailed explanation of exactly what happened and who first broke away from the procedure.

[amm]

Re Griffs point...The 4th official does count the interchanges, but it not their responsibility to ensure the correct number are on the field of play. They keep a count, and obviously will highlight to the teams & ref if they see things amiss. The teams are responsible and whilst I accept they could slip up for a moment or two, they know it's down to them to get it right. As you quite rightly point out, procedure was not followed and it appears that all interchanges were not put through the official correctly.

 

If you want the officials to be totally responsible to nanny the teams, because they can't be trusted to do it themselves, we will have to install baby gates.

Edited June 14, 2013 by amh

[markleeds]

The games is in danger of driving people look Koucash from the game and leaving is with dross like Hetherigton having too much control.

[Griff]

Re Griffs point...The 4th official does count the interchanges, but it not their responsibility to ensure the correct number are on the field of play. They keep a count, and obviously will highlight to the teams & ref if they see things amiss. The teams are responsible and whilst I accept they could slip up for a moment or two, they know it's down to them to get it right. As you quite rightly point out, procedure was not followed and it appears that all interchanges were not put through the official correctly.

 

If you want the officials to be totally responsible to nanny the teams, because they can't be trusted to do it themselves, we will have to install baby gates.

Sounds too much like "not my fault, guv" for my liking.

[amm]

Sounds too much like "not my fault, guv" for my liking.

 maybe, but put yourself in their shoes

[Just to be clear]

The RFL simply needed to adjudge that the fine was upheld.  They didn't need to get all spiteful and ridiculous and make the punishment worse.

Just to be clear, the appeals tribunal is made up from a panel of people independent of the RFL, and who reevaluate all evidence to come to its own decision including deciding the appropriate punishment if necessary. It is not an investigation into the original hearing but a do over.

Usually where the appeals panel agree with the verdict of the original tribunal they will also come to the same opinion on the appropriate punishment. Here they clearly did not. That is the risk you take by asking the original hearing to be disregarded and a chance to do it all again, and is quite clearly stated in the operational rules that the appeals tribunal may reach its own verdict regardless of the original tribunal.

The whole operations rules tribunal process is a quasi-legal one and nothing to do with spite or management of employees and other strange conspiracy theories It seems some people just want to use this as another excuse to attack the RFL.