Jump to content

frivolous appeal


Recommended Posts

Why is this primarily a Leeds issue this year? 

If this was my club I'd be asking why we are so incompetent with the process. 

And yes,  I am conscious that my club haven't had disciplinary issues this year because we barely complete tackles,  legal or illegal.  

😆

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Then you have not been watching the game very long Juggy, are you telling us all that there has not been a concerted effort first of all in Australia - who incidentally all the coaches complained about player's getting binned for quite innocuous tackles that they got the decision makers to relax the instructions they gave to the refs - then over here, my take on it is yes if it is malicious do something about it, but have some common sense when head contact is caused by the attacker not the defender.

If you’re genuinely saying that forearms to the face aren’t and haven’t been tackles that have led to bans then that’s, frankly, untrue. 

Edited by Jughead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jughead said:

This is also Rhyse Martin that’s had a ban in the last month and has been sin binned at least once this season, so his record precedes him. 

I couldn't find that detail,  so thanks for posting.  That 3xplains why his Grade A charge meant 1 match and not 0 as is often awarded for grade A. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

"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

3 minutes 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.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jughead said:

If you’re genuinely saying that forearms to the face aren’t and haven’t been tackles that have led to bans then that’s, frankly, untrue. 

I am saying that at one time refs were allowed to use some common sense, in making a decision but now it is a directive that they have no choice, I actually heard one ref in a televised game, when a player slipped into a tackle and was unavoidably caught in the head by the defender say to him, I know it was accidental but you caught him, I have to give a free kick against you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes 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.

I haven't seen it, but I am arguing against the principle of accidental contact, if it is as you describe then fair enough.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

I haven't seen it, but I am arguing against the principle of accidental contact, if it is as you describe then fair enough.

I agree that we have to identify where contact is accidental and recognise it as such.

As Dave says, this may not have been intentional but the movement of the arm high meant there was a risk of a high shot and that happened and so the tackler must bear the responsibility for that.

"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

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

I haven't seen it, but I am arguing against the principle of accidental contact, if it is as you describe then fair enough.

I have some sympathy with the extreme versions of what you refer to,  but tbh,  I see very,  very few of these accidental tackles. According to club fans every high tackle could be described as accidental,  but very few are. A ball carrier is allowed to step,  duck,  shift their body without taking a hit in the head.  Tackles responsibility to tackle legally,  they are choosing to tackle round the chest. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I couldn't find that detail,  so thanks for posting.  That 3xplains why his Grade A charge meant 1 match and not 0 as is often awarded for grade A. 

Yes, he's effectively got a three game ban all from this incident.

 

Sorry but this **** over the past month really is making me question why I spend so much time and money on this sport when it's so obviously manipulated or incompetent. Kasiano will be playing for Catalan when he should be on the second of at least a two game ban for his assault on Dwyer. Martin has got three games for incidents everyone involved in the game, including referees, knows are utterly trivial. It's too pathetic for words.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I agree that we have to identify where contact is accidental and recognise it as such.

As Dave says, this may not have been intentional but the movement of the arm high meant there was a risk of a high shot and that happened and so the tackler must bear the responsibility for that.

I thought, and I could be wrong, that we'd reached the point where deliberate/accidental doesn't really matter. It is up to the tackler to be in control of what they are doing and contact with the head during the tackle shows that they were not in control (and/or were in control and just decided to wallop the head anyway).

  • Confused 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, M j M said:

it's so obviously manipulated

Leeds have won Super League eight times.

Were the manipulators asleep in those years?

  • Haha 4

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

The key thing though is not to appeal when you have no new evidence or arguments. That would be a spectacularly stupid thing to do.

Someone better tell Hetherington - he's been spectacularly stupid all year 🤣

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Why is this primarily a Leeds issue this year? 

If this was my club I'd be asking why we are so incompetent with the process. 

And yes,  I am conscious that my club haven't had disciplinary issues this year because we barely complete tackles,  legal or illegal.  

😆

Quite simply because they and their fans have decided to make it one.

Leeds fans decided to blame the referee for their defeats at the start of the season, rather than look a little closer to home. Every week we were getting posts like that on here. That mentality has continued all season.

Blaming the referee is also quite convenient for a club that is playing poorly and provides a nice bogeyman to divert attention to, and away from your own mistakes, as well.

If Leeds had played better at the start of the season then none of this would have happened. Instead we get a woe is me and everyone hates us attitude from the club, its fans, its apologists in the media, its players and even player's fathers. You begin to reap what you sow with this mentality.

Edited by Damien
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Leeds have won Super League eight times.

Were the manipulators asleep in those years?

I don't see your point. The grotesque discrepancy between what Martin got three games for and what Kasiano got zero games for is a function of the current disciplinary system failure not stuff which happened a decade ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

Quite simply because they and their fans have decided to make it one.

Leeds fans decided to blame the referee for their defeats at the start of the season, rather than look a little closer to home. Every week we were getting posts like that on here.

Blaming the referee is also quite convenient for a club that is playing poorly and provides a nice bogeyman to divert attention to, and away from your own mistakes, as well.

If Leeds had played better at the start of the season then none of this would have happened. Instead we get a woe is me and everyone hates us attitude from the club, its fans, its apologists in the media, its players and even player's fathers. You begin to reap what you sow with this mentality.

Erm, we’re not blaming the referees for the Martin incidents, we’re agreeing with them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, M j M said:

I don't see your point. The grotesque discrepancy between what Martin got three games for and what Kasiano got zero games for is a function of the current disciplinary system failure not stuff which happened a decade ago.

Just trying to understand when the manipulators started manipulating.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

Quite simply because they and their fans have decided to make it one.

Leeds fans decided to blame the referee for their defeats at the start of the season, rather than look a little closer to home. Every week we were getting posts like that on here. That mentality has continued all season.

Blaming the referee is also quite convenient for a club that is playing poorly and provides a nice bogeyman to divert attention to, and away from your own mistakes, as well.

If Leeds had played better at the start of the season then none of this would have happened. Instead we get a woe is me and everyone hates us attitude from the club, its fans, its apologists in the media, its players and even player's fathers. You begin to reap what you sow with this mentality.

Matthew Shaw is seeing it as vindication for his crusade for truth and justice.

He's got up to 50 retweets about it which, in the RL echo chamber, pretty much guarantees that his views will be accepted by the RFL as being correct.

  • Like 2

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Erm, we’re not blaming the referees for the Martin incidents, we’re agreeing with them.

Obviously. I'm talking about what has happened with Leeds literally moaning about everything, whether that is referees or the MRP. 5 posts in we have the the MRP is anti Leeds talk. 

If leeds had got off to a winning start then none of this moaning would have happened. Instead it's been constant. Leeds as a club should be better than this.

Edited by Damien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I am saying that at one time refs were allowed to use some common sense, in making a decision but now it is a directive that they have no choice, I actually heard one ref in a televised game, when a player slipped into a tackle and was unavoidably caught in the head by the defender say to him, I know it was accidental but you caught him, I have to give a free kick against you.

  That is good refereeing at least the player is made aware of the decision.However all players should know contact with the head or neck is a penalty even if accidental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, M j M said:

Yes, he's effectively got a three game ban all from this incident.

 

Sorry but this **** over the past month really is making me question why I spend so much time and money on this sport when it's so obviously manipulated or incompetent. Kasiano will be playing for Catalan when he should be on the second of at least a two game ban for his assault on Dwyer. Martin has got three games for incidents everyone involved in the game, including referees, knows are utterly trivial. It's too pathetic for words.

I usually agree with you mate,  but I can't here. 

He hasn't got 3 matches for that incident. He got 1 for repeat offending -  a separate incident.  He could have stuck there,  they decided to appeal yet again,  he got another for that. So your logic doesn't work. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I thought, and I could be wrong, that we'd reached the point where deliberate/accidental doesn't really matter. It is up to the tackler to be in control of what they are doing and contact with the head during the tackle shows that they were not in control (and/or were in control and just decided to wallop the head anyway).

I didn't make it clear enough but I was referring to all the incidental contact you get in fair tackles with the head of players coming into contact with hips, shoulders, elbows etc.  If a player is penalised for contact with a ball carriers head with the arm in a tackle then I agree that can rarely be dismissed as entirely accidental.  I am wary to say never as I think we have to view all these incidents on a case by case basis as even very similar incidents will have some differences.

  • Thanks 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

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...