This week's disciplinary.

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

I actually don’t understand this:

Tonight’s tribunal accepted that while there was some twisting to apply pressure to the limb of an opposing player, this did not exceed the normal range of movement and therefore could not have posed an ‘unacceptable risk of injury’.

What evidence is provided to justify that?

It would seem the review was based on the concept that the previous panel's evidence was, essentially, flawed and incompetent.

Unbelievably, the MRP Appeal panel concurred.

[Damien]

 

[DG70]

Inexplicable....

[Dave T]

I've never been as disappointed with the sport tbh.  This just doesn't pass the sniff test.  Something isn't right here. 

Since when do we have two appeals? 

[Agbrigg]

Just now, Dave T said:

I've never been as disappointed with the sport tbh.  

Dont call it a sport that gives it an air of credibility and tonight its lost everything. 

[Tommygilf]

Can this officially qualify as "dark day for the sport" territory?

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Agbrigg said:

Dont call it a sport that gives it an air of credibility and tonight its lost everything. 

The social media reaction is everything from as you say, to a joke, to significant number of outright corruption claims.

At what point does it become bringing the sport into disrepute?

[EagleEyePie]

Surely this decision proves that the process is flawed. Whether you agree with the outcome or not, they've seemingly come to the 'correct' decision in their eyes having got it wrong twice. It must have hinged on the defence that Saints provided, yet all players are punished before they can even provide a defence and are threatened with increased sanctions for 'frivolous' appeals should they attempt to defend themselves.

If you're going to punish players beforehand then it should be as close to black and white as possible and there must objectively be a right and a wrong outcome, but their process has forced a player to appeal an appeal to reach the right outcome.

If, however, greater context is required to come to the right decision (as this incident suggests), it's wrong to be punishing players before they can provide that context.

[Desert Skipper]

Well. It sets a precedent. I expect to see this move all next year with no consequence.

[Chris22]

5 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

yet all players are punished before they can even provide a defence and are threatened with increased sanctions for 'frivolous' appeals should they attempt to defend themselves.

I agree with this. I don't think not accepting a penalty charge notice should equate to an appeal, with punishment for not accepting the charge.

The RFL do publish detailed guidance and I do accept that a degree of inconsistency is unavoidable.

But something has gone wrong here. I wonder if getting rid of the penalty notice system is better, so that teams can at least present a case without fear or favour is better.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

I don't think think I've ever commented on a disciplinary matter on this forum but I couldn't keep quiet on this one. 

Disgusting. Utterly disgusting. One of the most horrible offences I've ever seen a player commit on a rugby league field, something at the time made me feel sick when I saw it. Everyone with even the littlest connection to the game were calling for his head. I guess everyone except the disciplinary panel anyway. 

I've felt myself drifting away from the game a bit over the last couple of years and this quite frankly has taken what little shred of respect I still had left towards the RFL and ripped it into tiny little pieces and ###### on them. 

A truly disgusting decision for a truly disgusting act. My love of rugby league is fading off into the distance and I'm not feeling too much of a need to go catch back up with it right now. 

[Agbrigg]

mc manus has the game in his pocket, its as simple as that. 

[UTK]

I'm not sure why the RFL has felt the need to give neutrals yet another reason to cheer against a Saints 4-peat but there you go.

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Desert Skipper said:

Well. It sets a precedent. I expect to see this move all next year with no consequence.

Such an incredibly sad and dangerous precedent to set.

[Tommygilf]

Who'd be a referee eh?

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

12 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The social media reaction is everything from as you say, to a joke, to significant number of outright corruption claims.

At what point does it become bringing the sport into disrepute?

This damages the sport in a big way.

I've always listened to the 'RFL not fit for purpose' chant with some scepticism and hoped at least at the top thier must be some talented and hard working people. 

It looks like the RFL really is a corrupt joke and completely unfit for purpose 

[Tex Evans Thigh]

If the majority weren’t already, I think that puts every neutral firmly in Leeds corner. Utterly baffling decision. 

Where is the rule that says you can appeal an appeal? How many appeals can one have? Joke.

[Dave T]

Knowles and RFL trending on twitter. 

[Agbrigg]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Who'd be a referee eh?

Dont joke tommy lad, a few six agains at the right time and the odd offside or incorrect PTB at the right point in the game to give the right result could be quite lucrative. Because fantantsy or not, this so called sport is now tainted.

[Agbrigg]

3 minutes ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

If the majority weren’t already, I think that puts every neutral firmly in Leeds corner. Utterly baffling decision. 

Where is the rule that says you can appeal an appeal? How many appeals can one have? Joke.

but would that count if you also have the referee on the payroll because now most people will be thinking that is the case.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

Dont joke tommy lad, a few six agains at the right time and the odd offside or incorrect PTB at the right point in the game to give the right result could be quite lucrative. Because fantantsy or not, this so called sport is now tainted.

 

Just now, Agbrigg said:

but would that count if you also have the referee on the payroll because now most people will be thinking that is the case.

Honestly it is appalling the position this decision (and some other decisions) have put referees in.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Knowles and RFL trending on twitter. 

My initial reaction to that was, "great, that's gonna really show the sport up to the rest of the world, just what we need". Then I immediately thought, no, let the rest of the world see what a useless joke of an organisation the RFL is. But you know the worst thing, they'll see the outcry, the hatred from their once loyal fans and they will do sod all about it. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

25 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

Surely this decision proves that the process is flawed. Whether you agree with the outcome or not, they've seemingly come to the 'correct' decision in their eyes having got it wrong twice. It must have hinged on the defence that Saints provided, yet all players are punished before they can even provide a defence and are threatened with increased sanctions for 'frivolous' appeals should they attempt to defend themselves.

If you're going to punish players beforehand then it should be as close to black and white as possible and there must objectively be a right and a wrong outcome, but their process has forced a player to appeal an appeal to reach the right outcome.

If, however, greater context is required to come to the right decision (as this incident suggests), it's wrong to be punishing players before they can provide that context.

They can attend the hearing and give their side, so not entirely punished beforehand

[daz39]

Wow, an absolutely appaling and unbelievable decision, no player on earth would get away with what he did any other week of the year!!

Absolutely blatant disregard to allow a player to play in a Grand final!

[Bedford Roughyed]

46 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

I actually don’t understand this:

Tonight’s tribunal accepted that while there was some twisting to apply pressure to the limb of an opposing player, this did not exceed the normal range of movement and therefore could not have posed an ‘unacceptable risk of injury’.

What evidence is provided to justify that?

I'm going with Saints getting a good (expensive) lawyer who took one look at the rules and said 'show me the definition of range of movement', and prove that this was outside of it?  You can prove it right?  I have a tribunal waiting if you can't....