Jump to content

frivolous appeal


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

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

You don't get my point, it's the inconsistent decisions that get on my wick.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


6 hours ago, dboy said:

I nearly missed the sarcasm then!

You should have missed it, sarcasm the lowest form of wit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours 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.

Never said they shouldn't, it's the inconsistencies that's the trouble. Currie should have been banned he wasn't, Kasiano should have been banned he wasn't.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Loiner said:

You don't get my point, it's the inconsistent decisions that get on my wick.

But those incidents are completely different.  Did you advise the club on their appeal? 

The cal for consistency is always interesting. It's just a moan about one of your players being banned. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Loiner said:

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

According to the notes from the disciplinary panel, this was exactly the argument used by Leeds in the appeal.  Taking a different style of tackle that didn't result in a ban and arguing that it somehow should effect the decision on the Martin tackle.

It was in fact part of the reason why the appeal was described as frivolous and an extra game added to the ban.

That you bring up a different tackle in a thread discussing the frivolous appeal seems the height of irony.  Frivolous squared if you will.

Edited by Dunbar
  • Like 1
  • 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

Does anyone know where the sentencing guidelines can be found for this year?  There is a section in the operational rules,  but the section with the actual gradings etc seems to have been removed,  and I can't find it on the website any more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Does anyone know where the sentencing guidelines can be found for this year?  There is a section in the operational rules,  but the section with the actual gradings etc seems to have been removed,  and I can't find it on the website any more. 

This?
https://www.rugby-league.com/flipbooks/2022-operational-rules-tiers-1-3/index.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, LeeF said:

I've found that, I mean the actual sentencing guidelines. Looks like I have found something through Google:

 

OnFieldCompliance_Procedures_Sentencing_Guidelines_2022.pdf (rugby-league.com)

I cant find this in the Op rules..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the wording around this that I was interested in:

 

Penalty Notice Sanction

After the Panel have graded the offence in line with the Sentencing Guidelines, they will consider the previous disciplinary record of the Player in order to determine the Penalty Notice sanction.

3.2.1. If a Player has: a) been Found Guilty of two or more On Field Misconduct Offences in the previous 24 months, including at least one offence in the previous 12 months prior to the date on which the Offence attracting the Penalty Notice was committed; or b) been Found Guilty of a Similar Offence at Grade C or above in the previous 24 months to the date on which the Offence attracting the Penalty Notice was committed; the Player will be deemed to have a “Relevant Record” and will receive a Penalty Notice sanction which will be at the higher end of the Grade of the Offence with which the Player is charged.

So, it looks like Martin has been charged on 3 occasions in the last 24 months, (2 x 1 match bans in July and Aug 2021, plus the 1 match ban in August this year). So this fourth charge absolutely hits the above and sees him getting 1 match ban for Grade A instead of 0 match ban, which is what Leeds asked for. This explains why the appeal failed - if it is deemed a Grade A offence, the punishment is 1 match.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It was the wording around this that I was interested in:

 

Penalty Notice Sanction

After the Panel have graded the offence in line with the Sentencing Guidelines, they will consider the previous disciplinary record of the Player in order to determine the Penalty Notice sanction.

3.2.1. If a Player has: a) been Found Guilty of two or more On Field Misconduct Offences in the previous 24 months, including at least one offence in the previous 12 months prior to the date on which the Offence attracting the Penalty Notice was committed; or b) been Found Guilty of a Similar Offence at Grade C or above in the previous 24 months to the date on which the Offence attracting the Penalty Notice was committed; the Player will be deemed to have a “Relevant Record” and will receive a Penalty Notice sanction which will be at the higher end of the Grade of the Offence with which the Player is charged.

So, it looks like Martin has been charged on 3 occasions in the last 24 months, (2 x 1 match bans in July and Aug 2021, plus the 1 match ban in August this year). So this fourth charge absolutely hits the above and sees him getting 1 match ban for Grade A instead of 0 match ban, which is what Leeds asked for. This explains why the appeal failed - if it is deemed a Grade A offence, the punishment is 1 match.

Exactly right.  If you plead guilty to the lowest grade offence and that offence brings a ban based on your previous record and the published sentencing guidelines then where are the grounds for an appeal.

Leeds should not have appealed as there was no way they could win it.  But according to the notes, the appeal was essentially "come on, he has played all year and it's a big game at the weeked".

  • 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

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

According to the notes from the disciplinary panel, this was exactly the argument used by Leeds in the appeal.  Taking a different style of tackle that didn't result in a ban and arguing that it somehow should effect the decision on the Martin tackle.

It was in fact part of the reason why the appeal was described as frivolous and an extra game added to the ban.

That you bring up a different tackle in a thread discussing the frivolous appeal seems the height of irony.  Frivolous squared if you will.

Another one that doesn't quite get my interpretation, it's probably me not being eloquent enough. I'm saying Martins tackle and Curries were both an attack on the head, one was penalised one wasn't. Not consistent enough by the MRP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Another one that doesn't quite get my interpretation, it's probably me not being eloquent enough. I'm saying Martins tackle and Curries were both an attack on the head, one was penalised one wasn't. Not consistent enough by the MRP.

No, I fully understand the point you are making. I just don't agree with it.

"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

56 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It was the wording around this that I was interested in:

 

Penalty Notice Sanction

After the Panel have graded the offence in line with the Sentencing Guidelines, they will consider the previous disciplinary record of the Player in order to determine the Penalty Notice sanction.

3.2.1. If a Player has: a) been Found Guilty of two or more On Field Misconduct Offences in the previous 24 months, including at least one offence in the previous 12 months prior to the date on which the Offence attracting the Penalty Notice was committed; or b) been Found Guilty of a Similar Offence at Grade C or above in the previous 24 months to the date on which the Offence attracting the Penalty Notice was committed; the Player will be deemed to have a “Relevant Record” and will receive a Penalty Notice sanction which will be at the higher end of the Grade of the Offence with which the Player is charged.

So, it looks like Martin has been charged on 3 occasions in the last 24 months, (2 x 1 match bans in July and Aug 2021, plus the 1 match ban in August this year). So this fourth charge absolutely hits the above and sees him getting 1 match ban for Grade A instead of 0 match ban, which is what Leeds asked for. This explains why the appeal failed - if it is deemed a Grade A offence, the punishment is 1 match.

So the very definition of a frivolous appeal.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Damien said:

So the very definition of a frivolous appeal.

a misguided appeal or not accepted but not frivolous. I think the disciplinary panel need to pick better words and one with a better explanation to remove the guess work.

Too add... Leeds would have clearly understood the risk of an extra game ban. Would have thought about it with great care given the risk. I don't think they thought oh, lets just appeal and use a flimsy excuse.

Edited by redjonn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, redjonn said:

a misguided appeal or not accepted but not frivolous. I think the disciplinary panel need to pick better words and one with a better explanation to remove the guess work.

Too add... Leeds would have clearly understood the risk of an extra game ban. Would have thought about it with great care given the risk. I don't think they thought oh, lets just appeal and use a flimsy excuse.

Frivolous seems to be a perfect fitting word based on the definition of the word. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do love when an argument ends up as "I demand consistency, so because they got this decision wrong they must now keep getting it wrong all the time"

Its incredible logic...

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, redjonn said:

a misguided appeal or not accepted but not frivolous. I think the disciplinary panel need to pick better words and one with a better explanation to remove the guess work.

Too add... Leeds would have clearly understood the risk of an extra game ban. Would have thought about it with great care given the risk. I don't think they thought oh, lets just appeal and use a flimsy excuse.

It's the perfect word and Dave's explanation of the sanction explained why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, redjonn said:

Too add... Leeds would have clearly understood the risk of an extra game ban. Would have thought about it with great care given the risk. I don't think they thought oh, lets just appeal and use a flimsy excuse.

Which begs the question.  Why did they just appeal and use a flimsy excuse?

  • Like 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

Leeds appeal their failed frivolous appeal and Martins extra game ban:

Leeds will appeal against the frivolous nature of the ban handed to Rhyse Martin on Tuesday evening, head coach Rohan Smith has confirmed.

The Rugby Football League’s match review initially gave Martin a one-match ban for a Grade A high tackle on Castleford forward Alex Mellor two weeks ago.

Leeds appealed the suspension but were unsuccessful in doing so. As a result, Martin saw his ban doubled. An independent tribunal found the challenge to be frivolous and issued an additional £500 fine.

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/rhyse-martin-leeds-rhinos-appeal-frivolous-ban/

Edited by Damien
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Leeds appeal their failed frivolous appeal and Martins extra game ban:

Leeds will appeal against the frivolous nature of the ban handed to Rhyse Martin on Tuesday evening, head coach Rohan Smith has confirmed.

The Rugby Football League’s match review initially gave Martin a one-match ban for a Grade A high tackle on Castleford forward Alex Mellor two weeks ago.

Leeds appealed the suspension but were unsuccessful in doing so. As a result, Martin saw his ban doubled. An independent tribunal found the challenge to be frivolous and issued an additional £500 fine.

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/rhyse-martin-leeds-rhinos-appeal-frivolous-ban/

HANG IT IN THE LOUVRE

  • Haha 3

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, dkw said:

Dont give Martin an extra ban because of this, just pick another Leeds player to ban randomly because of the frivolous appeal, sit back and enjoy the fallout ha ha...

Can't punish an appeal of a frivolous appeal for frivolity - which seems rather silly.

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...