Jump to content

Harry Newman at the RFL Disciplinary appeal hearing..


Recommended Posts

Sky Sports Jenna Brooks to Jake Connor regarding England selection : "Shaun Wane has said that he's spoken to you about why you were left out, he's also said he's told you what you needed to do more of, I'm interested, what do you need to do more of and did you do it tonight?"

Jake Connor : "I don't know, to be honest I haven't spoken to him."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I struggle to understand why Leeds appealed. Especially to plead not guilty. 

Maybe an appeal that a two match ban was harsh but accepting guilt would have been better.

This was always the most likely outcome. Naive in the extreme by Leeds.

  • Like 9

Twitter: @TrylineUK
Latest Blog: Leeds' Indian Summer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missed a lot of rugby over the last couple of years through no fault of his own... but these three matches certainly are (well, him and the club for a crazy appeal).

He should get his head down and just play rugby. 

  • Like 2

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Live after death said:

RFL basically saying if you have the audacity to appeal you will get punished, the appeal process id clearly not fair or fit for purpose.

No they aren’t. There have been a number of appeals this season which haven’t resulted in a reduced ban and haven’t been deemed frivolous. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally , i do struggle a bit with the concept of a ‘ frivolous ‘ appeal . Basically we think subjectively youre taking the proverbial daring to appeal so , err , you can have an extra game ban . Strikes me as a bit odd . Im reminded of General Melchett fining Blackadder for wasting the courts time and turning up for trial after he murdered Speckled Jim 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Generally , i do struggle a bit with the concept of a ‘ frivolous ‘ appeal . Basically we think subjectively youre taking the proverbial daring to appeal so , err , you can have an extra game ban . Strikes me as a bit odd . Im reminded of General Melchett fining Blackadder for wasting the courts time and turning up for trial after he murdered Speckled Jim 

I think it's perfectly reasonable tbh. Otherwise everyone would just 'have a go' at the appeals. 

With such a clear cut case, there was no reason for an appeal to succeed and therefore even be considered to be submitted. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm OK with the concept of a frivolous appeal if all the club/player is doing is just saying 'please change your mind on the decision'.  If they were bringing new evidence or a new perspective then that is different. 

  • Like 7

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think it's perfectly reasonable tbh. Otherwise everyone would just 'have a go' at the appeals. 

With such a clear cut case, there was no reason for an appeal to succeed and therefore even be considered to be submitted. 

But whos to say whats clear cut . Maybe you dont and you have a right to appeal . Everyone does . Uphold it or not fair enough but whats ‘ frivolous ‘ , what criteria is that ? Well we say it is so have some more ban .  A sentence can be changed on appeal viewing the merits of a case but surely not for just using your right to appeal because subjectively its seen as a wind up

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

One thing though, if gobbing off at the ref is worth a two match ban then it should be worth a red card at the time

Indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

One thing though, if gobbing off at the ref is worth a two match ban then it should be worth a red card at the time

I thought Newman was probably lucky to get away without a card on the night. He was seen on TV having a go at the touch judge, Leeming and Roby were spoken to about players in the refs ear and then the Newman incident that ended with Oledzki pulling him away. He’d have probably got a lesser ban, if at all, if he’d have been sin binned on the night. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

One thing though, if gobbing off at the ref is worth a two match ban then it should be worth a red card at the time

Indeed, the ref took no action even though the abuse was allegedly aimed at him. If he didn't deem it worthy of even a yellow card (not forgetting he handed 3 out on the night) what right dies the review panel have to decide its worth 2 matches and then add another one on top because they feel like it? Having said that, Leeds should not have bothered to appeal as we all knew what the result would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

It was a stupid appeal, but the frivolity is so subjective across a season I think it is silly.

You either can appeal or you can't.

You can appeal and lose and not have your ban increased.  There are numerous examples from this season alone

Alternatively you can run a “frivolous “ appeal or one without merit and get your ban increased. 

And all the decisions are made by a panel headed by an independent High Court judge

It’s really not difficult. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Spotty Herbert said:

Indeed, the ref took no action even though the abuse was allegedly aimed at him. If he didn't deem it worthy of even a yellow card (not forgetting he handed 3 out on the night) what right dies the review panel have to decide its worth 2 matches and then add another one on top because they feel like it? Having said that, Leeds should not have bothered to appeal as we all knew what the result would be.

The “review panel” didn’t add the extra match. The MRP one graded the incident initially and then Leeds appeal to the Disciplinary Appeals panel which is headed by an independent High Court judge.

If Leeds and/ or Newman were stupid enough to appeal the original 2 match ban then that’s on them and nobody else

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LeeF said:

You can appeal and lose and not have your ban increased.  There are numerous examples from this season alone

Alternatively you can run a “frivolous “ appeal or one without merit and get your ban increased. 

And all the decisions are made by a panel headed by an independent High Court judge

It’s really not difficult. 

What is the definition of frivolous?

Its silly to have an appeals system that risks increasing your ban at the whim of a single judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...