Salford City Reds docked two competition points

[RSN]

Is there an explanation why Saints got a slap on the wrist whilst Salford got a 4 figure fine and a points deduction?

[Derwent]

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

Exactly. It's a result as far as Salford are concerned.

[Southstander13]

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.

 

Thanks for that, interesting reading!

[Southstander13]

Exactly. It's a result as far as Salford are concerned.

 

Actually, thats a good point, you could argue they've saved £5,000 and its made no real difference to their season!

[hindle xiii]

I actually go do some work for a few hours and this happens. I thought this mishap was all dealt with and put to bed weeks ago.

 

I think for Salford's sake I should stay here from now on, just to make sure this doesn't happen again.

[Griff]

maybe, but put yourself in their shoes

What I'd like to know is - did the sub run on of his own accord or was he sent on ? It's straightforward enough.

[Saintslass]

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.

.

The Board is supposed to be independent also but it has two RFL members on it, yes?  Could you list the members of the appeals tribunal for us, just so that we can testify to its independence?  I'm rather skeptical when it comes to 'independence' in relation to the RFL.

 

But whether they are actually independent or not, why should they should increase the punishment just because an appeal has been received.  A player appeals against his ban and does his punishment increase?  No.  It is simply upheld.

 

Of course the advantage to this for Salford is that they pay only half the original fine so as others have pointed out, that could be deemed a result for them. The competition points are no loss to them given that they are going nowhere anyway. 

[gingerjon]

Actually, thats a good point, you could argue they've saved £5,000 and its made no real difference to their season!

 

Only if the appeal cost them no money!

 

Is there really no prize money based on position in SL?

[amm]

What I'd like to know is - did the sub run on of his own accord or was he sent on ? It's straightforward enough.

 

I don't know, I'm not privy to the explanation given - like everyone else, I am drawing my own conclusions from the published information I have read. If it is available it would be interesting to read. 

[Saint Toppy]

Is there an explanation why Saints got a slap on the wrist whilst Salford got a 4 figure fine and a points deduction?

If I recall Cunningham was injured and was in the process of leaving the field when the replacement came on. Saints were fined for having 14 men on the field but no further punishment as neither Cunningham or the replacement took part in any play while there was 14 on the field.

Slightly different to Salford who's 14th man made several try saving tackles.

[gingerjon]

Slightly different to Salford who's 14th man made several try saving tackles.

I believe he also found a cure for cancer but the RFL have stopped him saying what it is.

[Viking Warrior]

Is there an explanation why Saints got a slap on the wrist whilst Salford got a 4 figure fine and a points deduction?

pretty much like luis suarez getting 10 games for biting and jermaine defoe nothing for the same offence.........the inequality of decisions has been a sore point for many years in every sport.

[Viking Warrior]

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

quite the contrary, people like koukash have to realise that every club chairman has a responsibility to uphold the laws of the game.

[Spidey]

What were Salford appealing anyway?

 

a) That they didn't field 14 players

 

or

 

The sanction imposed

 

 

If it was a, that was a bit daft as the evidence was quite conclusive for all to see

 

If it was b, then there is always the possibility that the appeals committee could actually send out a more severe sentence

 

 

 

Either way an appeal as three outcomes, either nothing changes, the club are better off or the club are worse off

[keighley]

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.

 

There is no relegation, they are not in with any chance of making the playoffs so the league points are meaningless. They have, however, saved themselves 5,000 pounds.

[matt newsholme]

.

Edited June 14, 2013 by matt newsholme

[matt newsholme]

Only if the appeal cost them no money!

Is there really no prize money based on position in SL?

Afaik there is prize money based on position in SL but only for the playoff places.

[Southstander13]

But whether they are actually independent or not, why should they should increase the punishment just because an appeal has been received.  A player appeals against his ban and does his punishment increase?  No.  It is simply upheld.

 

Actually, on occasions a players ban has been increased after appeal.

 

Otherwise any player will always appeal as there is nothing to lose if the worst that happens is that a ban gets upheld. It would waste time and money.

[Griff]

Actually, on occasions a players ban has been increased after appeal.

Agree - it's not uncommon at all.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

I actually go do some work for a few hours and this happens. I thought this mishap was all dealt with and put to bed weeks ago.

 

I think for Salford's sake I should stay here from now on, just to make sure this doesn't happen again.

You'll find that work's less hassle than dealing with us infants  I tried growing up once , but it was BORING!!

[amm]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/22910804

 

Listen to the response from Dr Marwan Koukash

 

He thinks they're targeting Salford, or more likely him for speaking his mind

 

That the 4th official is at fault, and theirs was a genuine mistake

 

That one or two clubs were calling for a points deduction and have influenced the decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Red John]

It's about time other clubs pulled their fingers out and started getting our sport into the news. It's just not right that everyone wants to leave it to Dr Koukash.

[Saintslass]

Agree - it's not uncommon at all.

Well, I'm struggling to think of one punishment to a player that was increased following appeal in the years I've been watching the game.  I just can't think of one.

[Saintslass]

It's about time other clubs pulled their fingers out and started getting our sport into the news. It's just not right that everyone wants to leave it to Dr Koukash.

He's just been interviewed about it on the BBC World Service!  I wonder how many times rugby league has featured on the World Service?

[Brigg Rover]

Finally the correct verdict has been reached.