James Bentley

[Crown Flatter]

I wouldn’t want Bentley in my team and I reckon Saints were really pleased when Leeds came for him.

I see the same ‘quality’ in Dudson too.

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Extended to 4 matches..... 

Want to laugh some more…

[M j M]

4 minutes ago, Crown Flatter said:

I wouldn’t want Bentley in my team and I reckon Saints were really pleased when Leeds came for him.

 

They kept offering him more and more money to stay so that's not the case.

[Old Frightful]

12 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

He'll probably end up with 5 matches for a frivolous appeal.

I was close…

[Chrispmartha]

8 hours ago, Leeds Wire said:

Absolutely in bits laughing at Leeds. They appealed Bentley’s ban so he’s now got 4.

Who’s idea was that? Idiots.

Turn up the booing on the tannoy to help the fans out with theirs. 

 

whos idea was it to appeal holmes’ ban?

 

;-)

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

 

whos idea was it to appeal holmes’ ban?

 

As per our previous conversation, I'm happy that they extend these. Just rolling the dice and hoping for a better decision is a waste of time and resources and should absolutely be discouraged. 

[Chrispmartha]

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

As per our previous conversation, I'm happy that they extend these. Just rolling the dice and hoping for a better decision is a waste of time and resources and should absolutely be discouraged. 

To be honest Im not sure it should be actively discouraged, if there is an appeal process then it should be a fair one - In these two cases I think the clubs were wrong to appeal and the extensions are fair, but that doesn’t mean the next appeals are the same.

You either have a fair appeals process which is taken case by case or don’t have one at all, just being tough on appeals for the sake of sending out a message that you shouldn’t appeal is wrong.

[dkw]

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

To be honest Im not sure it should be actively discouraged, if there is an appeal process then it should be a fair one - In these two cases I think the clubs were wrong to appeal and the extensions are fair, but that doesn’t mean the next appeals are the same.

You either have a fair appeals process which is taken case by case or don’t have one at all, just being tough on appeals for the sake of sending out a message that you shouldn’t appeal is wrong.

But every appeal takes up resource, whether thats people or financial theres a cost to it. In a case like this one its a club making an appeal with no real justification. There has to be a positive and negative outcome available to an appeal.

[Chrispmartha]

12 minutes ago, dkw said:

But every appeal takes up resource, whether thats people or financial theres a cost to it. In a case like this one its a club making an appeal with no real justification. There has to be a positive and negative outcome available to an appeal.

But you either have a fair appeal process or not, you can’t say it should automatically be harsh to put people off appealing, that makes the process unfair because a player with a justifiable appeal might be put off.

it also would make the actual banning process unfair because if clubs know it’s pointless appealing then bans could be unnecessarily harsh with no fair right to appeal.

if the appeal process is a waste of resources, get rid of it.

[dkw]

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

But you either have a fair appeal process or not, you can’t say it should automatically be harsh to put people off appealing, that makes the process unfair because a player with a justifiable appeal might be put off.

it also would make the actual banning process unfair because if clubs know it’s pointless appealing then bans could be unnecessarily harsh with no fair right to appeal.

if the appeal process is a waste of resources, get rid of it.

Why do you feel it isnt fair, the rules are set out for the allowance of an appeal, and also the rules and punishments are set out for what is and isnt a frivolous appeal. Everyone going into these appeals know the rules, the punishments and the allowed outcomes. Their is fairness.

[Saint Toppy]

10 hours ago, M j M said:

They kept offering him more and more money to stay so that's not the case.

You've just made that up. Saints offered him what they thought he was worth, Leeds offered considerably more - end of. Exactly as they did with Fages & Coote.

[Just Browny]

33 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

To be honest Im not sure it should be actively discouraged, if there is an appeal process then it should be a fair one - In these two cases I think the clubs were wrong to appeal and the extensions are fair, but that doesn’t mean the next appeals are the same.

You either have a fair appeals process which is taken case by case or don’t have one at all, just being tough on appeals for the sake of sending out a message that you shouldn’t appeal is wrong.

I think appeals should be available if there is new information or evidence; it feels like a waste of time to just get a second opinion  on the same set of evidence.

[RP London]

11 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Do they make the grounds on which they appealed public?

i hear they were shaky... 

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, dkw said:

Why do you feel it isnt fair, the rules are set out for the allowance of an appeal, and also the rules and punishments are set out for what is and isnt a frivolous appeal. Everyone going into these appeals know the rules, the punishments and the allowed outcomes. Their is fairness.

I didn’t say it was currently unfair.

My point was a reply to a post suggesting that appeals should be treated harshly to put clubs off from appealing (unless I interpreted the post incorrectly)

[dkw]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I didn’t say it was currently unfair.

My point was a reply to a post suggesting that appeals should be treated harshly to put clubs off from appealing (unless I interpreted the post incorrectly)

I didnt say it had to be treat harshly, just that there had to be some negative outcome attached to ensure clubs dont keep just putting in appeal after appeal.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, dkw said:

I didnt say it had to be treat harshly, just that there had to be some negative outcome attached to ensure clubs dont keep just putting in appeal after appeal.

It wasn’t your point i was initially responding to.

 

ive no problem with s negative outcome but it should be on a case by case basis and shouldn’t put clubs off appealing

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

It wasn’t your point i was initially responding to.

 

ive no problem with s negative outcome but it should be on a case by case basis and shouldn’t put clubs off appealing

it is on a case by case basis. it is not automatic that you get an extended ban if your appeal fails.. it is only if the appeal is seen to be utterly pointless and therefore you are just wasting everyone's time ie no new grounds, no new evidence

[hunsletgreenandgold]

15 hours ago, dkw said:

There's nothing worse than when someone brings up an old incident when a player got away with something. That doesn't help your argument, it doesn't show that the recent red card was wrong, it shows that the decision in the older incident was wrong.

To be clear DKW, I brought up the video more to suggest Bentley could've been out for some retribution against Widdop? Widdop was referred to the disciplinary panel for that incident and he was deemed to have not made contact with the head. I did add that edit on to the post, but it was at the bottom of the video so possibly went unnoticed. 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

it is on a case by case basis. it is not automatic that you get an extended ban if your appeal fails.. it is only if the appeal is seen to be utterly pointless and therefore you are just wasting everyone's time ie no new grounds, no new evidence

I know it is, I haven't got an issue with the current system - again, it was in response to a poster saying clubs should be 'actively discouraged'

[Impartial Observer]

14 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

I don’t think anyone has said the Bentley red card was wrong have they?

no need for the insults

Mick Gledhill though he probably thinks the Bradford player sent off on Monday was innocent also

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Impartial Observer said:

Mick Gledhill though he probably thinks the Bradford player sent off on Monday was innocent also

Ah, is DKW Mick Gledhill?

[RP London]

13 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I know it is, I haven't got an issue with the current system - again, it was in response to a poster saying clubs should be 'actively discouraged'

I know exactly what you are responding too and he actually said that it should "absolutely be discouraged" not that it should be "actively discouraged" you said that.. 

Hence i think people getting confused with your stance TBH

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

I know exactly what you are responding too and he actually said that it should "absolutely be discouraged" not that it should be "actively discouraged" you said that.. 

Hence i think people getting confused with your stance TBH

OK I misread but It amounts to the same thing.

If the appeals process is to be discouraged (actively or absolutely) then it's pointless having an appeals process IMO.

 

On a more general point it seems like were going to go through the same process as the NRL last year, lots of big bans and cards early on in the season then it settles down as the players and coaches adapt.

[M j M]

44 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

You've just made that up. Saints offered him what they thought he was worth, Leeds offered considerably more - end of. Exactly as they did with Fages & Coote.

OK if you say so 

[RP London]

12 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

OK I misread but It amounts to the same thing.

If the appeals process is to be discouraged (actively or absolutely) then it's pointless having an appeals process IMO.

 

On a more general point it seems like were going to go through the same process as the NRL last year, lots of big bans and cards early on in the season then it settles down as the players and coaches adapt.

i disagree, it is 2 very different things... mainly because, again, you are not quoting/reading it correctly (it is not that it should be absolutely discouraged its that it should absolutely be discouraged.. they are 2 quite different things too).

To actively discourage would mean that any appeal that was wrong would be given an extended ban, therefore you are actively discouraged from appealing because you WILL be punished if they dont agree with you. 

what Dave T said was "Just rolling the dice and hoping for a better decision is a waste of time and resources and should absolutely be discouraged" therefore exactly what we have now (which you have said you agree with) which is that if you appeal and that appeal is seen to have no grounds then you have your ban extended.. if your appeal is considered to be wrong but they sit there saying "well i understand why you appealed" then you dont get your ban extended.. 

you seem to be happy with the system (I say that because you said "I haven't got an issue with the current system ").. no one is saying (as far as i can tell) that they think that it should be "actively discouraged" except for you.. 

BTW: I know this is semantics but I just think its important as a few people were picking up on it and could be quite diverting when you seem to actually agree with everybody else..