JohnM Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 WTF???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 On 19/09/2022 at 11:24, Dunbar said: We will see what the panel come up with. My view is that the Welsby one was a cracking tackle and the Knowles one was a sin bin but nothing more. On 19/09/2022 at 21:04, Dunbar said: So I will quote myself before someone quotes me. Seems like the panel saw this as more serious than I did so I will hold my hands up and say I got it wrong. I'm back in the game! 8 "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...
Jinking Jimmy Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, dkw said: What have St Helens done wrong? Legally nothing but morally everything. Edited September 21, 2022 by Jinking Jimmy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkw Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 Just now, Jinking Jimmy said: Legally, nothing but morally everything. So the same as Leeds then, who did the exact same thing recently. Only difference is there's failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERSTUD Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 This outcome is seriously worrying no matter which club or player is involved. I smell a rat and it has left me feeling very uneasy in relation to the integrity of the whole process. Going forward this needs sorting big style. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 Just now, dkw said: So the same as Leeds then, who did the exact same thing recently. Only difference is there's failed. Leeds didn’t appeal the ban in the second appeal, they appealed the extra game for the ‘frivolous’ verdict. Slightly different. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 (edited) 11 minutes ago, ParksideReidy said: That’ll do as far as Rugby League is concerned for me now, I’ll watch the final then stick to football, it’s beyond parody A momentous day indeed. The fact this is your 10th post in 11 years tells us what an absurd decision this must be. All to then tell us you are done too! Edited September 21, 2022 by Damien 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris22 Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 Having considered this a bit more thoroughly, I'm still struggling to get my head around this. From Saints' perspective, it is in our interests to have as many players as possible available for the Grand Final. With internationals counting towards bans, there was no disincentive to Saints appealing. Any additional 'frivolous' related suspension would only impact England. This placed the RFL in a position where there was a conflict of interest given that it is responsible for the national team. Similarly, there was nothing to lose with the second appeal. Saints haven't done anything 'wrong', as such. We are entitled to appeal a suspension, as is any team. But the balance of risk was lessened due to internationals counting towards suspensions. Despite Saints doing nothing illegally here, it does sit a little uncomfortably with me as a fan of the club. I know many will scoff at this, but we are a well-run club and I have always had a degree of pride in the way we have conducted ourselves off the field, certainly in more recent years. The exception being McManus' comments following the 2019 Challenge Cup Final. We got some tough calls from the ref that day, but that's life. We weren't good enough to win. For example, Woolf has publicly backed the RFL's harsher disciplinary approach all year. When Sironen got banned for a soft shoulder charge against Wakefield, he backed the decision, saying he understood the need for the RFL to protect players. Same for Mata'utai's suspension for lifting the collar of a potentially injured Danny Levi. And that gave me pride that we do things the right way. Although I back the rights of a club to challenge a suspension, this just doesn't feel right when, in my view, Knowles' actions placed a player in a potentially dangerous situation and posed the risk of a nasty injury. I've avoided the need for calls for reform of the disciplinary system, but every week there seems to be a circus surrounding suspensions. This has been unbecoming for the sport and an unwelcome distraction ahead of the Grand Final, culminating in a second tribunal repudiating the view of the referee, match review panel and first tribunal in one fell swoop. That is indicative that something isn't right at all. Players must be protected from injury and that should be the centre of this, but some of the decisions reached and how they vary so wildly throughout the season suggests we need a rethink. 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 8 minutes ago, gingerjon said: It's been put out by the official RFL account on twitter. Yeah but that also laughed at a team getting 100 put on them. They've got a heck of a sense of humour and do funny emojis and everything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkw Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: Leeds didn’t appeal the ban in the second appeal, they appealed the extra game for the ‘frivolous’ verdict. Slightly different. Ha ha, come of it, that's ridiculous semantics. Both clubs appealed an appeal, its the same thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jughead Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 Just now, Jinking Jimmy said: Legally, nothing but morally everything. Have they? If you can appeal an appeal (seemingly you can, Leeds did with Newman’s ban earlier this year) and they felt they had a legitimate case, then why wouldn’t they do so? They’re vindicated by doing so, given the result. The ultimate issue is we shouldn’t have got to this point. Its not a good look for the sport but then this week as an entirety, hasn’t been a good look for the sport or disciplinary process. First, the John Bateman ban, which seems lenient given others that have been handed out this year, and then The RFL devaluing their own disciplinary process to help out England and then an appeal and an appeal of an appeal here that’s seen, within twenty four hours, a player banned for two games, backing the original punishment, to being free to play on Saturday. I sympathise with the Leeds fans. I know the Saints fans would have the same feelings had it been Rhyse Martin or any other Leeds player. This will rumble on before and after the game, as will, most likely, chat about refereeing decisions, as is the case these days with Rugby League. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 (edited) 3 minutes ago, dkw said: Ha ha, come of it, that's ridiculous semantics. Both clubs appealed an appeal, its the same thing. It’s really not semantics at all. Leeds did not appeal the original ban twice, they appealed the ban once, then appealed the judiciary’s frivolous verdict and extra game, It is different. edited to add I don’t agree with the second appeal process- just pointing out the difference Edited September 21, 2022 by Chrispmartha 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 It seems an odd final straw but there you go. 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Frightful Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 We just have to hope that either the RFL twitter and facebook accounts have been hacked or they realise how corrupt they appear right now and backtrack with the excuse that they've been hacked. Hull FC....The Sons of God... (Well, we are about to be crucified on Good Friday) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davo5 Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 And the RFL has lost what little credibility it had,absolutely crazy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERSTUD Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 For me not about the player or club. Integrity and fairness of the whole process is paramount. Each and every player should be dealt with on a fair and completely equal basis such as offence committed and past history taken into account. It should matter not if said player is due to play in a grand final or for his country. The appropriate and proportionate punishment should be handed down. The actions of both players IMHO deserved bans. Welsby I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. Finally just think how Seizer must be feeling. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted September 21, 2022 Author Share Posted September 21, 2022 Well, this was even more interesting than I expected when I started the thread. It is an absolute joke. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParksideReidy Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 13 minutes ago, Damien said: A momentous day indeed. The fact this is your 10th post in 11 years tells us what an absurd decision this must be. All to then tell us you are done too! I’m glad you took it as I intended, I can now revert to merely reading posts until I’m overcome with anger again 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidM Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 Wowzers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StandOffHalf Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 The player's arm was manipulated behind his back and then straightened. Whoever's on the panel doesn't know what they're looking at if they say the arm wasn't forced into an unnatural position. St Helens should stand him down for the GF and apologise for sullying the game by appealing his ban. A disgraceful turn of events. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringbackGB Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 Utterly incomprehensible decision which is neglectful and prejudicial to player safety. The RFL judiciary should be ashamed of themselves. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayCee Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 Shouldn’t this thread be moved to the conspiracy theory one? My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/ It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course. It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 Given the reaction will be all over social media and the RL sections of the press, it smacks of amateur hour to not release the minutes/reasoning until tomorrow morning. The justifications have to be put out with such an important decision. It's crazy not to. 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 More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 1 minute ago, gingerjon said: Given the reaction will be all over social media and the RL sections of the press, it smacks of amateur hour to not release the minutes/reasoning until tomorrow morning. The justifications have to be put out with such an important decision. It's crazy not to. They need time to decide what to actually put in them 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 4 minutes ago, ParksideReidy said: I’m glad you took it as I intended, I can now revert to merely reading posts until I’m overcome with anger again I like the cut of your jib. Please don't leave it as long the next time! 1 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