frivolous appeal

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Yes,  on your first para,  that was my view,  it was reckless based on where Martin's arm was.  The direction was upwards and over the shoulder,  leaving a high risk of a high tackle,  which happened. 

I think the Grade A was right as the contact was reckless but not too forceful,  but if he has recently been banned,  that would explain 1 match rather than 0.

The totting up of Grade As and cautions leads to more bans for Grade As towards the end of the season for a number of players. They just don’t appeal, clearly without a case, so stick at a 1 match ban 

[LeeF]

59 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think we do usually see the detail of the appeal don't we?  

Tbh I've stopped using the site as I think the search function has been either removed or hidden,  helpfully! 

The search function is still there but it is very slow to work and they have stopped adding full details of any hearing or appeal 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

7 hours ago, LeeF said:

In the incident the Leeds player makes direct contact to the head of the Cas player. How they can then claim “not guilty” is probably why the appeal was deemed frivolous. 
 

it is also not the first time that Leeds have appealed this season and been found to have made a frivolous appeal so maybe just maybe the issue is with Leeds not knowing what they are doing rather than some stupid made up conspiracy theory 

Okay. So every contact to the head is a ban?

Why wasn't Kasiano' s and several others in the season ?

[redjonn]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I had not seen the tackle before so found a video on Twitter.  Clearly a high shot and the ball carrier falling is no defence as contact was made when the player was still upright... in fact if you freeze the video at point of contact the tacklers arm was higher than his own head so a deliberate movement of the arm to tackle high.  Maybe not a deliberate dirty tackle but still a clear foul.

As for the ban.  Maybe a little harsh to cop a 1 match ban but I can't see any serious grounds for complaint. 

On to the appeal.  Did Leeds provide new evidence or did they just say 'please reconsider'. If it is the latter then surely it is frivolous as an appeal must bring a new perspective or new evidence and not just challenge the punishment with a claim that it is too harsh.

On your first paragraph.

Didn't his tackle hit the ball first which was being held high by Mellor.  So I was wondering how is one supposed to tackle if trying to either prevent an off load or dislodge the ball.  If a foul it was a penalty for sure but I struggle seeing it as worthy of a sin bin unless  the ref thought it was deliberate and hence struggle to see why a ban.

I guess you have to check were the player is carrying and if high then tackle below the ball so as to ensure no chance of hitting the head.  

The big problem I have is the comparison between Kasiano late hit in game before  which was far more dangerous than this incident. Yet a player that has not long come back from a ban and hence seems to be treated differently. 

As I've said before I expect a higher degree of consistency from the disciplinary that I could expect from a ref during a game.  

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

But now he is out of the semi if they win.  That risk seemed too high to me.  

The first ban means any chance of the semi final is gone (losing their best player and virtually guaranteed 100% kicker) so it's moot 

Friday's match/event is ruined due to overzealousness in the MRP. It was a penalty no more. Rhys had no malintent and isn't a dirty player

Does this mean Martin can't play PNG's first WC game too? 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

It’s the inconsistency that irks though.

 

go all the way back to the opening game, Ben Currie knocks Fusitua out with a shoulder to the head (causing him to miss quite a few games ) No Ban, the reason given was the attacking player dipped into contact and there  was no intent - fast forward to the last game of the season…

also Kasiano smacks Dwyer round the chops off the ball - nothing to answer, a couple of weeks later…

 

There is consistency. It's all based on what jersey they are wearing 

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, redjonn said:

On your first paragraph.

Didn't his tackle hit the ball first which was being held high by Mellor.  So I was wondering how is one supposed to tackle if trying to either prevent an off load or dislodge the ball.  If a foul it was a penalty for sure but I struggle seeing it as worthy of a sin bin unless  the ref thought it was deliberate and hence struggle to see why a ban.

I guess you have to check were the player is carrying and if high then tackle below the ball so as to ensure no chance of hitting the head.  

The big problem I have is the comparison between Kasiano late hit in game before  which was far more dangerous than this incident. Yet a player that has not long come back from a ban and hence seems to be treated differently. 

As I've said before I expect a higher degree of consistency from the disciplinary that I could expect from a ref during a game.  

No, he didn't hit the ball before he made contact with the head.

[LeeF]

9 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Okay. So every contact to the head is a ban?

Why wasn't Kasiano' s and several others in the season ?

Not at all but every contact is a penalty minimum. I haven’t seen the Kasiano one but am not influenced by supporting 1 club or another in these things and I 100% don’t buy into yours & others stupid conspiracy theories 

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

The first ban means any chance of the semi final is gone (losing their best player and virtually guaranteed 100% kicker) so it's moot 

Friday's match/event is ruined due to overzealousness in the MRP. It was a penalty no more. Rhys had no malintent and isn't a dirty player

Does this mean Martin can't play PNG's first WC game too? 

give over

[daz39]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

As is the referee and video referee on the day!

Why bother with those, lets just play, let everything go and the MRP can decide if punishments are necessary.

That's more or less what happens anyway!

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I dont think club bans are used for internationals. If they are then they certainly shouldnt be.

I am sure they are, I seem to remember when we had proper tours here, if player's were suspended domestically they couldn't play international, albeit could be wrong.

[FearTheVee]

The big point for me is that handing out bans for what is essentialy accidental contact with the head is pointless unless the actions leading to it are obviously reckless, because by definition it won't stop accidental contact to the head.

I think Martin has been hard done to and even as a Saints fan I feel for Leeds on this one.  It's a penalty but I just don't think we should be banning players for that - I genuinely don't believe it makes the sport any safer and if we just need to ban everything for the sake of insurers then I would expect us to lose quite a lot of fans who have been attracted to the toughness of the sport.  I don't mean let high tackles go, I mean acknowledge that it's a fast, physical game and there is a difference between dirty play, reckless play and just things that sometimes happen and a penalty is sufficient.'

Anyone who genuinely thinks players suffer later in life from a career in RL because of tackles like Rhyse Martin's rather than decades of smashing into other players and being slammed to the floor in both attack and defence then they are barmy IMO.  If you decide that contact is too dangerous for the sport then the sport is too dangerous to play.

One of the big questions I woud have, however, is how Leeds went about the appeal - they don't seem to be very good at this.

Edited September 7, 2022 by FearTheVee

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

however, the rule is there, its been there all year and the players know it.. play to it

How do they play to it, stand there and consider do I think he is going to slip into my tackle? Better not do it then.

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

How do they play to it, stand there and consider do I think he is going to slip into my tackle? Better not do it then.

They manage to either do these things or not during the rest of the season is the point.. its not a new rule for the one match. Therefore the whole paragraph what iffing is pointless. 

Each incident is different, show me an incident and I would look into it and discuss it.. I'm not going to "what about" on this as all incidents are different so its pointless, however, sometimes, as with all incidents, there is nothing you can do and you just have to cop it. 

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, RP London said:

They manage to either do these things or not during the rest of the season is the point.. its not a new rule for the one match. Therefore the whole paragraph what iffing is pointless. 

Each incident is different, show me an incident and I would look into it and discuss it.. I'm not going to "what about" on this as all incidents are different so its pointless, however, sometimes, as with all incidents, there is nothing you can do and you just have to cop it. 

Not just this incident, there would be plenty Aussie coaches who thought otherwise and highlighted incidents saying it would turn fans away from the game if the refs carried on binning player's for accidental contact, the authorities eased the clampdown.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Harry Stottle

[RP London]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Not just this incident, there would be plenty Aussie coaches who thought otherwise and highlighted incidents saying it would turn fans away from the game if the refs carried on binding player's for accidental contact, the authorities eased the clampdown.

What are you talking about?

You were trying to come up with an incident that might affect something and might get penalised.. just because you don't like the rule. how can anyone complain about an incident that hasnt/wont happen..

I've given my view on the Rhys Martin one. 

 

[Niels]

I think the big picture is that because they left themselves needing to beat Castleford,  Leeds were always likely to pick up injuries and suspensions.

Catalans had earned the right to rest players to avoid this. 

I think possibly Leeds were expecting to play Huddersfield (maybe underestimating them). However, Salford were shrewd and avoided the seemingly more daunting trip to France. 

Maybe this was why they were flawed and appealed? 

It shows how difficult it is to win from outside the top 4, which of course is still possible. Caesar kicks goals.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Niels

[Dave T]

The position of Martin's arm here is not accidental. 

Tackling like this leads to players getting hit in the face. 

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Dave T

[FearTheVee]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The position of Martin's arm here is not accidental. 

Tackling like this leads to players getting hit in the face. 

 

Yep, his arm has ended up hitting a player in the face, which is a penalty.

If all freeze framed contact above the shoulders is a ban with all other context ignored you can probably count me out of bothering with RL for too much longer.

Edited September 7, 2022 by FearTheVee

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Yep, his arm has ended up hitting a player in the face, which is a penalty.

If all freeze framed contact above the shoulders is a ban you can probably count me out of bothering with RL for too much longer.

The point is,  people are saying this was accidental -  it's not,  he chose to put his arm in that position.  I have some sympathy where the arm is low and it hits a falling player (although there is still a duty of care),  but no tackle should have any phase like the above. 

If you do,  and get it wrong,  you can have little complaint. 

[JohnM]

28 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Yep, his arm has ended up hitting a player in the face, which is a penalty.

If all freeze framed contact above the shoulders is a ban with all other context ignored you can probably count me out of bothering with RL for too much longer.

No problem. There are far too many Saints fans as it is and one less is a step in the right direction.

[Chrispmartha]

Smith’s take on it from leeds live

 

Smith admitted  on Wednesday he felt frustrated that the process is still conducted remotely online as opposed to in-person, leaving Leeds and other clubs limited in the detail of footage they can present. He also insisted he felt the incident itself was a mere accident, and said if you appeal a ban, you are 'guilty until you're found guiltier'.

 

Im not really sure if that's the type of tackle that's an issue in our game," he said. "I do think it's an accident and I think Rhyse was taking some care in the way he went about it. It was a falling player and a glancing touch.

"To me, the more concerning part, and it sounds like there's going to be a conversation, is the process around it all. You're essentially guilty until you're found guiltier if you decide to appeal. That process in itself, we're still on Teams calls online to show footage that doesn't have the ability to go frame by frame

"You can't see it with real clarity and it's a little vague at times. I'm not sure why we aren't in-person, face to face, looking at the same technology we have available. That would make the process a little clearer."

 

Smith continued: "It was difficult for sure. We had a 30-minute conversation led by the judge who probed, challenged and asked questions. We had a detailed analysis of the tackle itself and a comparison clip that although wasn't the same style of tackle, it was ranked as a caution which is what we deemed this.

 

 

"The other part of it the RFL used was a James Roby tackle from earlier in the season which we analysed closely and we were able to provide some reasons why it was different, and not as significant in our eyes. I'm not sure of their definition of frivolous, it seems different to the definition that I've had from legal people. How that's being used in the RFL seems different

 

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/leeds-coach-rohan-smith-disciplinary-24954083?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Smith’s take on it from leeds live

 

Smith admitted  on Wednesday he felt frustrated that the process is still conducted remotely online as opposed to in-person, leaving Leeds and other clubs limited in the detail of footage they can present. He also insisted he felt the incident itself was a mere accident, and said if you appeal a ban, you are 'guilty until you're found guiltier'.

 

Im not really sure if that's the type of tackle that's an issue in our game," he said. "I do think it's an accident and I think Rhyse was taking some care in the way he went about it. It was a falling player and a glancing touch.

"To me, the more concerning part, and it sounds like there's going to be a conversation, is the process around it all. You're essentially guilty until you're found guiltier if you decide to appeal. That process in itself, we're still on Teams calls online to show footage that doesn't have the ability to go frame by frame

"You can't see it with real clarity and it's a little vague at times. I'm not sure why we aren't in-person, face to face, looking at the same technology we have available. That would make the process a little clearer."

 

Smith continued: "It was difficult for sure. We had a 30-minute conversation led by the judge who probed, challenged and asked questions. We had a detailed analysis of the tackle itself and a comparison clip that although wasn't the same style of tackle, it was ranked as a caution which is what we deemed this.

 

 

"The other part of it the RFL used was a James Roby tackle from earlier in the season which we analysed closely and we were able to provide some reasons why it was different, and not as significant in our eyes. I'm not sure of their definition of frivolous, it seems different to the definition that I've had from legal people. How that's being used in the RFL seems different

 

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/leeds-coach-rohan-smith-disciplinary-24954083?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

It seems really odd to present a tackle that they acknowledge as different to the appeal. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

give over

I'm serious. It isn't just Leeds fans who are outraged over the Martin ban either

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

52 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

 

If all freeze framed contact above the shoulders is a ban with all other context ignored you can probably count me out of bothering with RL for too much longer.

Potentially many others feeling the same way 

People can take the 'zero tolerance' high ground all they like but a significant portion of RL fans cross club are getting disillusioned .....