This week's disciplinary.

[bobbruce]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

That’s what im saying

No you blamed the appeals panel. What’s caused this is the original decision which left them open to this. 

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

No you blamed the appeals panel. What’s caused this is the original decision which left them open to this. 

No, read the report, this appeal was appealing the first appeal panels findings, not the original MRP decision.

which is why throwing the whole thing out is incompetence 

Edited September 22, 2022 by Chrispmartha

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

If that posted earlier is Correct it seems they’ve got off with it on a technicality because the original panel was inept. 

The error came (if there was one) from the first appeals panel.

The Match Review Panel deemed it dangerous conduct and foul play.

The appeal panel upheld the ban but critically said "the panel agreed with the MRP verdict but accepted the opponent’s arm stayed in a natural range."

It is this wording that Saints have jumped on to get the decision overturned - their argument being how can it be dangerous contact if the arm stayed in a natural range.

[bobbruce]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

No, read the report, this appeal was appealing the first appeal panels findings, not the original MRP 

Edited September 22, 2022 by bobbruce

[JohnM]

I find the whole thing very unappealing.

[jacksy]

2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I find the whole thing very unappealing.

I find the whole game unappealing nowadays. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I find the whole thing very unappealing.

And depressing 

I understand why the authorities want Knowles in the Final and first England game but morally it's wrong to brush it under the carpet 

Player safety has to come first 

So should not looking like a poorly run, cheap, tin pot sport run by incompetent people 

 

[bobbruce]

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The error came (if there was one) from the first appeals panel.

The Match Review Panel deemed it dangerous conduct and foul play.

The appeal panel upheld the ban but critically said "the panel agreed with the MRP verdict but accepted the opponent’s arm stayed in a natural range."

It is this wording that Saints have jumped on to get the decision overturned - their argument being how can it be dangerous contact if the arm stayed in a natural range.

I’m going off the letter I think Chris posted earlier which says. 

 

The basis for this argument was that as the original tribunal had agreed that the action of Mr
Knowles was a professional foul in an attempt to slow the play the ball down; they could not say that
either the player's shoulder or indeed the player's wrist at any point was in an unnatural position,
although it appeared that the attacking player's shoulder was put to the end of the range of its

[JohnM]

1 minute ago, jacksy said:

I find the whole game unappealing nowadays. 

There speaks a true fan.

 

 

 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

Maybe I've read that wrong but it seems to be suggesting it is the attacking players fault for allowing Knowles to twist his arm, or trunk as it says because apparently he's an elephant now. 

[bobbruce]

14 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

No, read the report, this appeal was appealing the first appeal panels findings, not the original MRP decision.

which is why throwing the whole thing out is incompetence 

Again this is what it says. 
 

The basis for this argument was that as the original tribunal had agreed that the action of Mr
Knowles was a professional foul in an attempt to slow the play the ball down; they could not say that
either the player's shoulder or indeed the player's wrist at any point was in an unnatural position,
although it appeared that the attacking player's shoulder was put to the end of the range of its

[Gomersall]

16 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

No, read the report, this appeal was appealing the first appeal panels findings, not the original MRP decision.

which is why throwing the whole thing out is incompetence 

My head hurts.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Again this is what it says. 
 

The basis for this argument was that as the original tribunal had agreed that the action of Mr
Knowles was a professional foul in an attempt to slow the play the ball down; they could not say that
either the player's shoulder or indeed the player's wrist at any point was in an unnatural position,
although it appeared that the attacking player's shoulder was put to the end of the range of its

They are talking about the original appeals tribunal

[JohnM]

My backside hurts. It feels like us fans have been shafted good and proper.

If I had any money, I'd get a proper lawyer on the case, not some barrack-room Scouse solicitor like Saints just used.

Edited September 22, 2022 by JohnM

[bromleybulldog]

Just hoping that Moore sorts it all out on Saturday by sending Knowles off in the first minute for smirking in an offensive manner

[gingerjon]

14 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Again this is what it says. 
 

The basis for this argument was that as the original tribunal had agreed that the action of Mr
Knowles was a professional foul in an attempt to slow the play the ball down; they could not say that
either the player's shoulder or indeed the player's wrist at any point was in an unnatural position,
although it appeared that the attacking player's shoulder was put to the end of the range of its

That's the first appeal they're referring to. It's the verdict of the appeal that has been overturned.

[Dunbar]

15 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Again this is what it says. 
 

The basis for this argument was that as the original tribunal had agreed that the action of Mr
Knowles was a professional foul in an attempt to slow the play the ball down; they could not say that
either the player's shoulder or indeed the player's wrist at any point was in an unnatural position,
although it appeared that the attacking player's shoulder was put to the end of the range of its

The original tribunal in this paragraph is the first appeal panel though, not the Match Review Panel.

The match Review Panel simply concluded that it was dangerous contact and imposed a 2 match penalty.  It is this first review (appeal) panel that muddied the waters by agreeing with the decision but stating that the players shoulder or wrist was not placed in an unnatural position.

Saints have used this wording to convince the 2nd appeals panel that the original decision of dangerous contact and a ban was, therefore, wrong.

Edited September 22, 2022 by Dunbar

[bobbruce]

11 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

They are talking about the original appeals tribunal

I know that my point it’s the original tribunals words that have dropped them in it. 

[bobbruce]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

That's the first appeal they're referring to. It's the verdict of the appeal that has been overturned.

Ah right my mistake 

[bobbruce]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

The original tribunal in this paragraph is the first appeal panel though, not the Match Review Panel.

The match Review Panel simply concluded that it was dangerous contact and imposed a 2 match penalty.  It is this first review (appeal) panel that muddied the waters by agreeing with the decision but stating that the players shoulder or wrist was not placed in an unnatural position.

Saints have used this wording to convince the 2nd appeals panel that the original decision was, therefor, wrong.

Ah right my mistake. 

[bobbruce]

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

That's the first appeal they're referring to. It's the verdict of the appeal that has been overturned.

Apologies I get it now. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Ah right my mistake 

No worries. They couldn't have made it less clear if they'd tried TBH.

[bobbruce]

Just now, bobbruce said:

Apologies I get it now. 

Ignore that GJ I’m not apologising twice to you. 

[bobbruce]

17 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

They are talking about the original appeals tribunal

Apologies I get it now. 

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I know that my point it’s the original tribunals words that have dropped them in it. 

Precisely - however simply dropping the whole thing is where it's incorrect, the initial appeals panel agreed with the MRP, it should have gone through the appeals process again not simply been dropped because this new appeal wasn't contesting the MRP.

It's incompetence, and embarrassing.