Chrispmartha Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 4 minutes ago, dboy said: 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. He didn’t say it was, he said it was confirmation of a failed system which you appear to agree with 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 28 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. I like watching Big Sam so I am a bit biased. However, I am trying to be objective. Had they both received a one match ban (presumably this is the comparison case from Leeds), then Sam would still be playing Friday as he would have missed last week against Wigan. I suspect they probably knew it was a gamble appealling, but decided no point worrying about a semi that might not happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M j M Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 5 minutes ago, dboy said: Getting Kasiano wrong is not a mitigation to let Martin off. Quite right. Will make a hell of a difference on Friday night though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M j M Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 1 minute ago, Niels said: I like watching Big Sam so I am a bit biased. However, I am trying to be objective. Had they both received a one match ban (presumably this is the comparison case from Leeds), then Sam would still be playing Friday as he would have missed last week against Wigan. I suspect they probably knew it was a gamble appealling, but decided no point worrying about a semi that might not happen. Kasiano would and should have been a two game ban minimum, especially given his record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 25 minutes 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! Does previous automatically lead to a suspension on Grade A I can’t find that on their website? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dboy Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: He didn’t say it was, he said it was confirmation of a failed system which you appear to agree with The system is not perfect, but it got Martin right. I am not aware of a perfect system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: He didn’t say it was, he said it was confirmation of a failed system which you appear to agree with Somebody can believe something is wrong without it meaning the system has failed. The system is fine, any system will involve somebody watching a video and making a call. What you disagree with is the human decision, which will always be used. Tbh, this is like those fans who get a bad decision in a game and call for refs to be sacked. The system is absolutely fine. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 1 minute ago, M j M said: Kasiano would and should have been a two game ban minimum, especially given his record. I don't think I saw the Kasiano incident, is there a link anywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 4 minutes ago, Niels said: I like watching Big Sam so I am a bit biased. However, I am trying to be objective. Had they both received a one match ban (presumably this is the comparison case from Leeds), then Sam would still be playing Friday as he would have missed last week against Wigan. I suspect they probably knew it was a gamble appealling, but decided no point worrying about a semi that might not happen. Kasianos wasn’t the comparable video they used, it was an off the ball high shot and should have been 2 matches 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live after death Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 Scrap the MRP its not fit for purpose “keep giving out bans keep losing fans” Litigation won’t ruin the game the MRP will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dboy Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said: Kasianos wasn’t the comparable video they used, it was an off the ball high shot and should have been 2 matches And had no bearing or relevance to the Martin ban. Utterly pointless and frivolous argument in the Martin appeal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 3 minutes ago, Dave T said: Somebody can believe something is wrong without it meaning the system has failed. The system is fine, any system will involve somebody watching a video and making a call. What you disagree with is the human decision, which will always be used. Tbh, this is like those fans who get a bad decision in a game and call for refs to be sacked. The system is absolutely fine. I disagree the system is fine, as do many people involved in the sport. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 Just now, dboy said: And had no bearing or relevance to the Martin ban. Utterly pointless and frivolous argument in the Martin appeal. It wasn’t used in the appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: Does previous automatically lead to a suspension on Grade A I can’t find that on their website? I thought someone had clarified that earlier, I didnt find it myself. Apologies if it isn't procedural and just a judgement assessment from the panel. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 Just now, Chrispmartha said: I disagree the system is fine, as do many people involved in the sport. The noises do seem to be from a certain segment.... Any system will involve somebody deciding whether something was foul play. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dboy Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: It wasn’t used in the appeal. No, the clip they did use - the panel said (indeed Rohan Smith admitted himself), had no semblance of the Martin incident. Edited September 7, 2022 by dboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 1 minute ago, Dave T said: The noises do seem to be from a certain segment.... Any system will involve somebody deciding whether something was foul play. For a start, for a process that involves review footage in detail, doing it over Zoom is amateurish. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 5 minutes ago, dboy said: The system is not perfect, but it got Martin right. I am not aware of a perfect system. I think we have to be careful to differentiate between a system and the execution of that system. The process of disciplinary and appeals may be fine as laid out but it involves some subjective judgement from the panel and that will always lead to occasions where people disagree with those judgements. We shouldn't blame the system for its execution. 1 "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dboy Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 8 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: Does previous automatically lead to a suspension on Grade A I can’t find that on their website? No the charge will be based on the incident. A clean slate can be argued as mitigation - having previous negates that angle of pleading the resulting sanction down. It's in the operational regs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dboy Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: For a start, for a process that involves review footage in detail, doing it over Zoom is amateurish. Both parties have the HD footage and both can see that "live" at their own end. It's not viewed within Zoom, that's just the method of hosting the actual meeting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: For a start, for a process that involves review footage in detail, doing it over Zoom is amateurish. Nah. That's not amateur at all. I'd argue it would be archaic making people get in a car and drive down the motorway. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 1 minute ago, Dave T said: Nah. That's not amateur at all. I'd argue it would be archaic making people get in a car and drive down the motorway. Well Smith disagrees and he is actually involved in them - unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 4 minutes ago, dboy said: Both parties have the HD footage and both can see that "live" at their own end. It's not viewed within Zoom, that's just the method of hosting the actual meeting. Have you been involved in one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: Well Smith disagrees and he is actually involved in them - unfortunately. If he is saying that the club couldn't put up a decent case because a video was blurry, then again, that shows Leeds' in a bad light. It's just excuses and trying to undermine something because their player was banned. Literally no more than that. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dboy Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: Have you been involved in one? I can neither confirm nor deny that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now