frivolous appeal

[Dave T]

31 minutes ago, M j M said:

A lot of rewriting history here. The issue isn't the stuff earlier in the year, it's the appropriateness of the three game bans given to Rhyse Martin in the past month for incidents that very few people in the game, including current and former referees, think are worthy of any ban at all.

So yes Leeds are aggrieved that probably their player of the season won't be playing in the last and biggest game of the year. Especially when they see who is lining up against them, unsanctioned in the 28 shirt. 

Who can forget Hetherington complaining that sponsors,  past players etc had the phones ringing off the hook at Headingley follow the early season ban? 

[Saint Toppy]

4 hours ago, gingerjon said:

How does it compare with previous seasons?

I must admit i'm struggling to find the full Stats for the 2 seasons. The only one's I had to work from was an article done after Round 5 which showed in 2021 by that stage there were 16 charges brought and 13 bans, and by the same stage in 2022 there had been 45 charges brought and 34 bans handed out.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Saint Toppy said:

I must admit i'm struggling to find the full Stats for the 2 seasons. The only one's I had to work from was an article done after Round 5 which showed in 2021 by that stage there were 16 charges brought and 13 bans, and by the same stage in 2022 there had been 45 charges brought and 34 bans handed out.

But thats conveniently when the clampdown changed and we went back to what happened before.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I agree with that,  keep the WC ring fenced and rollover to next season. 

????

Why????

Surely I'd it is a legitimate ban based on player safety then they must be prioritised and immediate. 

[Dave T]

Just now, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

????

Why????

Surely I'd it is a legitimate ban based on player safety then they must be prioritised and immediate. 

The complex logistics around this World Cup and national teams trying to manage their squads gives some justification imo to delink it from the local comp.  

Players would still be banned,  it would just be a discussion around when their punishment would be served. 

[LeeF]

It’s not three game bans that Martin has received in the last few weeks but three separate bans of 1 match each for 3 separate offences (the frivolous appeal is a separate offence)

The Grade A charging level is appropriate for the latest offence and with him having “previous” at Grade A then a 1 match ban is the norm. Leeds then compounded the issue by appealing which having read both the press interview and the RFL minutes clearly was without any real justification as the independent HCJ and other members of the Disciplinary panel, who are all ex players, agreed.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

The complex logistics around this World Cup and national teams trying to manage their squads gives some justification imo to delink it from the local comp.  

Players would still be banned,  it would just be a discussion around when their punishment would be served. 

What is complex about it? 

PNG would know their captain Rhys Martin has a one game ban. He therefore would not play in the first game against Tonga but is free after that 

if it's a legitimate ban based on player safety then that comes first 

Edited September 8, 2022 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[dboy]

4 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Talking of bans, any bans within SL will be enforced in the World Cup - im a bit unsure about this TBH, I get why they would do it but why risk diluting the WC teams, would it have been better to say any bans picked up will be taken up with the next club fixture?

Here's an idea - if you are likely to be playing in the WC, don't commit foul play and don't get sent off.

We could even extend this to players who aren't in WC contention, like a, ya know, standards of conduct thing.

We could call it "don't break the laws of the game".

It'll never catch on.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

What is complex about it? 

PNG would know their captain Rhys Martin has a one game ban. He therefore would not play in the first game against Tonga but is free after that 

if it's a legitimate ban based on player safety then that comes first 

 

Your last para makes no sense.  The player safety element isn't to protect other players in the next game.  It's a punishment to try and deter players from fouling,  that will still have its impact in SL games. 

The Grand Finals are 2/3 weeks away from the opener,  and 1/2 weeks away from warm up games.  

I don't feel too strongly about it,  but this RLWC is imho the most important tournament in RL history and we should do everything to ensure it's success. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Your last para makes no sense.  The player safety element isn't to protect other players in the next game.  It's a punishment to try and deter players from fouling,  that will still have its impact in SL games. 

The Grand Finals are 2/3 weeks away from the opener,  and 1/2 weeks away from warm up games.  

I don't feel too strongly about it,  but this RLWC is imho the most important tournament in RL history and we should do everything to ensure it's success. 

To really put players off foul play they need to know that it might affect their international games too.

Surely we want the deterrent to have maximum impact? 

Again player safety paramount ....more so than the success of the WC surely?

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

31 minutes ago, dboy said:

Here's an idea - if you are likely to be playing in the WC, don't commit foul play and don't get sent off.

We could even extend this to players who aren't in WC contention, like a, ya know, standards of conduct thing.

We could call it "don't break the laws of the game".

It'll never catch on.

Totally agree 

I find it hard to accept anyone saying the WC is an exception 

Maximum impact = maximum deterrent = maximum player safety 

It's a shame PNG will be without their captain and star player and the PNG Vs Tonga game will be less good but player safety first 

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

To really put players off foul play they need to know that it might affect their international games too.

Surely we want the deterrent to have maximum impact? 

Again player safety paramount ....more so than the success of the WC surely?

Well no,  we are not ignoring player safety,  we are still banning them. 

But it can't be ignored also that judiciary punishments are different in the NRL,  RFL and indeed international tournaments,  so I'd have no issues with isolating where those punishments are served. 

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Well no,  we are not ignoring player safety,  we are still banning them. 

But it can't be ignored also that judiciary punishments are different in the NRL,  RFL and indeed international tournaments,  so I'd have no issues with isolating where those punishments are served. 

Football separate domestic and international bans and it makes complete sense to do so.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

28 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But it can't be ignored also that judiciary punishments are different in the NRL,  RFL and indeed international tournaments,  so I'd have no issues with isolating where those punishments are served. 

Different judiciaries is irrelevant - It's the same sport Dave 

We accept the Cats Vs Leeds game is compromised tommorow so we need to accept the WC will be too 

Player safety first 

 

 

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Different judiciaries is irrelevant - It's the same sport Dave 

We accept the Cats Vs Leeds game is compromised tommorow so we need to accept the WC will be too 

Player safety first 

 

 

Still not got over it then 

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Different judiciaries is irrelevant - It's the same sport Dave 

We accept the Cats Vs Leeds game is compromised tommorow so we need to accept the WC will be too 

Player safety first 

 

 

 

48 minutes ago, Damien said:

Football separate domestic and international bans and it makes complete sense to do so.

We can punish players how we see fit. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

54 minutes ago, Damien said:

Still not got over it then 

Just pointing out the double standards that's all

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

36 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

We can punish players how we see fit. 

Hmmm

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Just pointing out the double standards that's all

There's no double standards though. You are simply trying to frame an argument to then argue against.

[Loiner]

On 07/09/2022 at 12:47, Dave T said:

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

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

 

A bit like Curries shoulder to Fusituas' head but he got away with it.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

13 minutes ago, Loiner said:

A bit like Curries shoulder to Fusituas' head but he got away with it.

Or the dozens of others 

[dboy]

34 minutes ago, Loiner said:

A bit like Curries shoulder to Fusituas' head but he got away with it.

Currie, or any other player, "getting away with it", is not a reason for the rules not to be applied to Martin, or any other player.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, dboy said:

Currie, or any other player, "getting away with it", is not a reason for the rules not to be applied to Martin, or any other player.

Of course it is.  Its a perfect way to make you the victim. Talk about an incident from Rd 1.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Dave T

[bobbruce]

37 minutes ago, Loiner said:

A bit like Curries shoulder to Fusituas' head but he got away with it.

Even if that was a similar tackle we’ve already established that Martyn was banned partly due to his previous record. So what had Currie done previous to the Fusituas tackle when it was so early in the season. 

[dboy]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Of course it is.  Its a perfect way to make you the victim. Talk about an incident from Rd 1.

I nearly missed the sarcasm then!