Jump to content

This week's disciplinary.


Dave T

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Can't do that think about it the other way round, a guy gets sent off in an international game for something bad worth say 6 games suspension, should he only be suspended for international games?

With the amount of internationals we play these days, that could take the best part of a decade!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


54 minutes ago, bromleybulldog said:

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

Oh my word seeing Knowles sent off early would be so sweet 

Virtually every non Saints fan seems to be behind Rhinos on Saturday so it would go down well

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Former Saints player and member of the Operational Rules Tribunal isn't happy all the focus is on this mess.....I wonder why? 

 

Reminds me of Pele trying to downplay the genuine anti-poverty demonstrations in the Brazilian WC. Both trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretend it is not important 

Integrity matters in sport 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

spacer.png

Two things jump out at me here:

1. They can't even get the post nominals of the judge right when they publish this. I'm sure they've heard that the Queen died, it should now be KC (King's Counsel) rather than QC.

2. Given the quasi-judicial nature of the proceedings, I assume the references to 'reasonableness' relate to the concept of 'Wednesbury reasonableness' which is how the courts approach cases which challenge decisions made by public bodies.

The question before the tribunal therefore seems to be, was the original decision "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have decided that way?"

That is a high standard to meet. Based on the information I've seen, I'm baffled how Saints have managed to convince the tribunal that no reasonable authority could have reached the original decision.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So most if not all agree the following:-

The referee got it correct under current guidelines to err on the side of caution hence the sin bin. The tackle looked and still looks like foul play 

The MRP got it correct by issuing a 2 match ban

The ORP v1 (Aka Appeals Panel 1) got it correct with upholding the ban but then used the wrong word(s) which Saints used as a loophole to appeal the appeal decision

The ORP v2 (aka Appeals Panel 2) got it correct as they were boxed in by the words used by ORPv1

The only remaining question is why don’t the RFL via their own policy appeal the current decision, which they can do, as being incorrect or too lenient.
The alternative is that chicken wing type tackles will become the norm unless the current review, which had already been set up by the RFL closes this potential loophole?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, SUPERSTUD said:

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.

Just what I was saying to my Fax supporting mate at work.

Just as the sport is on the cusp of a potential new dawn, with new backers, new positivity surrounding it, 3 days before of our the games' showpiece events and on the brink of the biggest RLWC ever, we come up with this.

I have heard from people who have said they've had enough and are now walking away from the sport, my area manager phoned me to ask what is going on with RL, my company sponsor a couple of teams, players and organisations and they seem pretty embarrassed by the negativity around rugby league today.

Personally, I think it's an absolute embarrassment, the Knowles thing, the Bateman for the Knights thing, the whole thing has possibly set rugby league back years.

I'm ashamed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, graveyard johnny said:

on the Knowles incident - the disciplinary committee were sticking to the original decision until they got their arm twisted by saints 

Clever.  Wish I had thought of that.

  • Haha 2

"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

48 minutes ago, LeeF said:

So most if not all agree the following:-

The referee got it correct under current guidelines to err on the side of caution hence the sin bin. The tackle looked and still looks like foul play 

The MRP got it correct by issuing a 2 match ban

The ORP v1 (Aka Appeals Panel 1) got it correct with upholding the ban but then used the wrong word(s) which Saints used as a loophole to appeal the appeal decision

The ORP v2 (aka Appeals Panel 2) got it correct as they were boxed in by the words used by ORPv1

The only remaining question is why don’t the RFL via their own policy appeal the current decision, which they can do, as being incorrect or too lenient.
The alternative is that chicken wing type tackles will become the norm unless the current review, which had already been set up by the RFL closes this potential loophole?

I still don't think the incident was as bad as it looked and it certainly wasn't a chicken wing tackle like some have suggested however do think he is very lucky to get away without a ban. However the language used by the first review panel totally contradicted itself so you can't blame Saints for exploiting that. 

We all want to see the best players available on the biggest stage and there are already a number of top players missing on Saturday. People just need to get over it and enjoy watching what should be a fantastic game. 

  • Like 2
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.