frivolous appeal

[Dunbar]

9 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

This part is just silly.

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.

Why present a comparison clip if it is a different type of tackle. Your argument there is 'we think this type of tackle is the same seriousness' which is going to get you nowhere.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 hours ago, LeeF said:

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 

Agreed but the insinuation was every contact to the head is a ban.... That's the bit I disagree with

[daz39]

Sick of listening to the Whinos whining, it's not as if they haven't benefited from stuf themselves - get on with it and shut up!!

[Chrispmartha]

15 minutes ago, daz39 said:

Sick of listening to the Whinos whining, it's not as if they haven't benefited from stuf themselves - get on with it and shut up!!

Coming from a fan of a club coached by Ian Watson that’s priceless.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

This part is just silly.

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.

Why present a comparison clip if it is a different type of tackle. Your argument there is 'we think this type of tackle is the same seriousness' which is going to get you nowhere.

It gives a bit of insight into how poor they are at appealing. How was showing a completely different tackle type going to convince anyone? 

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It gives a bit of insight into how poor they are at appealing. How was showing a completely different tackle type going to convince anyone? 

Maybe so but it doesn’t sound frivolous, which was Smiths point.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Agreed but the insinuation was every contact to the head is a ban.... That's the bit I disagree with

I’ve never stated that. Your conspiracy theories on the other hand…

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Maybe so but it doesn’t sound frivolous, which was Smiths point.

I would suggest showing a video of a completely different tackle that didn't get the same punishment is the very definition of frivolous. 

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

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

Even reading the “explanation” of the appeal you aren’t surprised that the appeal was thrown out & deemed frivolous 

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I would suggest showing a video of a completely different tackle that didn't get the same punishment is the very definition of frivolous. 

And the detailed analysis of the actual tackle.

The Panel also showed a completely different tackle to justify it, maybe the Rhinos should appeal the appeal citing the panel as being frivolous;-)

anyway unless the RFL actually publish the detail of the appeal none of us actually know do we.

[M j M]

Leeds use external legal support and ex-referees with their appeals so maybe they need to bring in new advisors for next season.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Maybe so but it doesn’t sound frivolous, which was Smiths point.

 

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I would suggest showing a video of a completely different tackle that didn't get the same punishment is the very definition of frivolous. 

Agreed. 

[bobbruce]

2 hours ago, M j M said:

Leeds use external legal support and ex-referees with their appeals so maybe they need to bring in new advisors for next season.

That’s interesting so when we see ex referees online telling us ghee the ref or disciplinary have got it wrong they may not be as neutral as we think. 

[M j M]

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

That’s interesting so when we see ex referees online telling us ghee the ref or disciplinary have got it wrong they may not be as neutral as we think. 

Possibly, but I suspect it may be someone lower profile on social media like Cummings than Silverwood (who is/was a Leeds fan) and Smith.

[Dave T]

The published verdict seems to be fair enough and well explained.  I assume those asking for the details are now satisfied? 

The MRP presented a comparable tackle by Roby that showed consistency of a Grade A -  Martin's led to a ban because of his record. 

Leeds presented a tackle that was not comparable,  which led to the MRP deeming this as frivolous,  saying that the appeal was no more than asking for clemency. 

I thought the explanation of the original offence was detailed,  and it should be noted that Martin did plead guilty,  not Not Guilty as some claimed on social media. 

I can understand some being miffed and thinking it's harsh,  but personally when I see a high tackle that is direct contact to the face that busts the players nose,  then I think the RFL are perfectly justified in a Grade A charge. 

[dboy]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Maybe so but it doesn’t sound frivolous, which was Smiths point.

Saying "here's a reason why you shouldn't ban him, but it's got no similarities to our players foul", is utterly frivolous.

[dboy]

2 hours ago, M j M said:

Leeds use external legal support and ex-referees with their appeals so maybe they need to bring in new advisors for next season.

Every club does.

[dboy]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The published verdict seems to be fair enough and well explained.  I assume those asking for the details are now satisfied? 

The MRP presented a comparable tackle by Roby that showed consistency of a Grade A -  Martin's led to a ban because of his record. 

Leeds presented a tackle that was not comparable,  which led to the MRP deeming this as frivolous,  saying that the appeal was no more than asking for clemency. 

I thought the explanation of the original offence was detailed,  and it should be noted that Martin did plead guilty,  not Not Guilty as some claimed on social media. 

I can understand some being miffed and thinking it's harsh,  but personally when I see a high tackle that is direct contact to the face that busts the players nose,  then I think the RFL are perfectly justified in a Grade A charge. 

Breaking News: Dave T wins the internet!

A near perfect post!

Bravo sir.

[Chrispmartha]

17 minutes ago, dboy said:

Saying "here's a reason why you shouldn't ban him, but it's got no similarities to our players foul", is utterly frivolous.

If that was the only explanation/reason they gave then I’d agree but it wasn’t.

[Chrispmartha]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The published verdict seems to be fair enough and well explained.  I assume those asking for the details are now satisfied? 

The MRP presented a comparable tackle by Roby that showed consistency of a Grade A -  Martin's led to a ban because of his record. 

Leeds presented a tackle that was not comparable,  which led to the MRP deeming this as frivolous,  saying that the appeal was no more than asking for clemency. 

I thought the explanation of the original offence was detailed,  and it should be noted that Martin did plead guilty,  not Not Guilty as some claimed on social media. 

I can understand some being miffed and thinking it's harsh,  but personally when I see a high tackle that is direct contact to the face that busts the players nose,  then I think the RFL are perfectly justified in a Grade A charge. 

I think the published article does a decent job of explaining it all.

I still think it’s harsh ban (especially the ‘frivoulous’ bit) and the ban that led him having ‘previous’ was even harsher.

Lets see if there’s consistency in the playoffs.

[M j M]

Kasiano is playing on Friday, Martin is out for two games. That's enough confirmation I need to see this is a failed system.

[Dunbar]

38 minutes ago, Dave T said:

and it should be noted that Martin did plead guilty,  not Not Guilty as some claimed on social media. 

This is the part that is almost impossible to understand. 

Martin pleaded guilty and this tackle can either be grade A or grade B offence.  The MRP assessed the offence as a Grade A (the lowest grade) and because of Martin's disciplinary record that assessment automatically led to the imposition of a 1 match suspension.

I just don't understand what there was to appeal.  If he is guilty and it is assessed at the lowest level but it was his previous record that led to the ban then that is just procedural and there is zero to appeal isn't there?

It seems they wanted to plead guilty but for it to be below the lowest grade!

[bobbruce]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

This is the part that is almost impossible to understand. 

Martin pleaded guilty and this tackle can either be grade A or grade B offence.  The MRP assessed the offence as a Grade A (the lowest grade) and because of Martin's disciplinary record that assessment automatically led to the imposition of a 1 match suspension.

I just don't understand what there was to appeal.  If he is guilty and it is assessed at the lowest level but it was his previous record that led to the ban then that is just procedural and there is zero to appeal isn't there?

It seems they wanted to plead guilty but for it to be below the lowest grade!

This is exactly why Leeds have had so many games added on through appeals. They either don’t know the system (which is shocking) or the think they can bully the system to get their own way. 

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

This is exactly why Leeds have had so many games added on through appeals. They either don’t know the system (which is shocking) or the think they can bully the system to get their own way. 

And in the full report on the RFL site, there is this part "Rohan Smith added he [Martin] had missed just three games this season and this weekend was the biggest game of the season."

Sorry, while as fans we should feel for a player missing out on a big game, I don't understand how it can be a consideration in a disciplinary and appeals process... especially when everyone demands consistency.

[dboy]

26 minutes ago, M j M said:

Kasiano is playing on Friday, Martin is out for two games. That's enough confirmation I need to see this is a failed system.

They got Kasiano wrong and Martin right.

Kasiano should have been banned.

Martin was correctly banned.

Getting Kasiano wrong is not a mitigation to let Martin off.