Jump to content

This week's disciplinary.


Dave T

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Dave T said:

My view on the foul is that it was nasty and cynical foul that should absolutely see players banned. We ban for a slight late moderate hit because we don't want players doing that,  we should absolutely ban for arm twists and holds that have no place in the game. 

I hadn't seen much calls for it being the worst thing ever -  people were pretty content that a couple of matches was a suitable punishment,  and based on players getting a couple of matches for moderate high tackles and similar,  it was seen as fair in the main. 

Yes, I think we can agree that we hadn't seen much calls for it being the worst thing ever.

Not sure why we have to agree on that as neither of us have even come close to suggesting it was, or seeing anyone else suggest it was, but nice to have some clarity.

"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


6 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

It will have zero impact on the sport, especially from casual fans, I doubt they even know about it, there seems to be very little coverage of the game as it is.

However as is being said that doesn't mean it shouldn't be swept under the carpet, the whole process needs looking at for next season

there seems to be very little coverage of the game as it is.

Worth mentioning the hour long preview on BBC Radio Five Live on Tuesday, and featuring in numerous BBC radio  sports news broadcasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

This is what's a bit bizarre about the whole incident - out of all of the dubious bans we have had this season this one was actually seen as a pretty fair one and the 2 matched was almost universally seen as correct (bar some saints fans) yet it was the one that got wiped off, and in a very spurious way, as you say the notes from the actual meeting have never seen the light of day, it has been handled (despite what Woolf says) terribly and has distracted from the build up of the biggest game of the season.

I'd disagree that it has distracted from it.  It's all part of the build up. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JohnM said:

there seems to be very little coverage of the game as it is.

Worth mentioning the hour long preview on BBC Radio Five Live on Tuesday, and featuring in numerous BBC radio  sports news broadcasts.

has there been anything on BBC breakfast? I saw the sports round up and only saw a bit on club RU being in a right old state

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, I think we can agree that we hadn't seen much calls for it being the worst thing ever.

Not sure why we have to agree on that as neither of us have even come close to suggesting it was, or seeing anyone else suggest it was, but nice to have some clarity.

We are agreeing, but the reason I made the point was that you have made a few posts highlighting that based on comments you thought it was going to be a lot worse than it was - that suggests you think people are blowing it out of proportion. When in reality, many people think it should have been red and a ban. And tbh, the vast majority of pundits and fans agree with that position, as did the MRP and appeals panel.

I think the reason it attracted a lot of noise, was a ) it was a semi final, plenty of eyes on it and passion as it was an important game, and b ) it was an unusual foul. Since we have outlawed pressure on joints this kind of tackle has been all but eradicated from SL in particular, so there is a feeling that it was a particularly unsavoury foul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

yes you're probably correct - it's certainly affected my build up to the game though, which I appreciate is my issue

Out of interest, have Leeds said anything about this?

Part of me thinks this is prime build up topic - when I started this thread it was slightly tongue in cheek following on from the last few weeks of disciplinary controversy - I had no idea we would be where we are now! But if we think about media events in F1 or Boxing and the like - this would absolutely be being addressed, and teams/fighters would be honest and give their blunt views on it rather than holding their tongue.

I don't want us to go as far as boxing/UFC, but I do think we could be a little more F1 with our rivalries.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Out of interest, have Leeds said anything about this?

Part of me thinks this is prime build up topic - when I started this thread it was slightly tongue in cheek following on from the last few weeks of disciplinary controversy - I had no idea we would be where we are now! But if we think about media events in F1 or Boxing and the like - this would absolutely be being addressed, and teams/fighters would be honest and give their blunt views on it rather than holding their tongue.

I don't want us to go as far as boxing/UFC, but I do think we could be a little more F1 with our 

 

Edited by Fevrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We are agreeing, but the reason I made the point was that you have made a few posts highlighting that based on comments you thought it was going to be a lot worse than it was - that suggests you think people are blowing it out of proportion. When in reality, many people think it should have been red and a ban. And tbh, the vast majority of pundits and fans agree with that position, as did the MRP and appeals panel.

I think the reason it attracted a lot of noise, was a ) it was a semi final, plenty of eyes on it and passion as it was an important game, and b ) it was an unusual foul. Since we have outlawed pressure on joints this kind of tackle has been all but eradicated from SL in particular, so there is a feeling that it was a particularly unsavoury foul.

I still think that Knowles was only holding his wrist to try and slow the play the ball and not try and force his arm into an unnatural position in an attempt to cause damage.

"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

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I still think that Knowles was only holding his wrist to try and slow the play the ball and not try and force his arm into an unnatural position in an attempt to cause damage.

Intent is irrelevant though. The arm ended up in a position that, as St Helens confirm, is used by the police when restraining people.

  • Like 4

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

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Intent is irrelevant though. The arm ended up in a position that, as St Helens confirm, is used by the police when restraining people.

I have said that I agree that it was a penalty and also that a sin bin was appropriate.

But if he was holding his wrist to slow the play the ball - attempting to slow the play the ball is something we see from almost every player in every game - then I am disagreeing with the description that it was a 'nasty and cynical foul'.

  • Like 1

"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

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Out of interest, have Leeds said anything about this?

Part of me thinks this is prime build up topic - when I started this thread it was slightly tongue in cheek following on from the last few weeks of disciplinary controversy - I had no idea we would be where we are now! But if we think about media events in F1 or Boxing and the like - this would absolutely be being addressed, and teams/fighters would be honest and give their blunt views on it rather than holding their tongue.

I don't want us to go as far as boxing/UFC, but I do think we could be a little more F1 with our rivalries.

Rohan Smith said something like 'nothing surprises me with this process' but basically wanted to downplay it and say it makes no difference to them as they have trained as if he was playing anyway - he clearly wasn't happy though, but saying that he always seems baffled at some of the questions from the journalists anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I have said that I agree that it was a penalty and also that a sin bin was appropriate.

But if he was holding his wrist to slow the play the ball - attempting to slow the play the ball is something we see from almost every player in every game - then I am disagreeing with the description that it was a 'nasty and cynical foul'.

Fair enough. No point going backwards and forwards on it again.

To be honest the most dispiriting thing for me overall, having had time to reflect, is that there is a basic incompetence - and it's the fact that it is not remotely surprising - in writing up your verdict in which you agree with the ban but then write that the foul was not a foul so is fine really. That shouldn't be something that can even happen.

That is just so basic an error - caused, I suspect, by the overly matey, small and shrinking pond in which RL operates.

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

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Fair enough. No point going backwards and forwards on it again.

To be honest the most dispiriting thing for me overall, having had time to reflect, is that there is a basic incompetence - and it's the fact that it is not remotely surprising - in writing up your verdict in which you agree with the ban but then write that the foul was not a foul so is fine really. That shouldn't be something that can even happen.

That is just so basic an error - caused, I suspect, by the overly matey, small and shrinking pond in which RL operates.

Yes.  When you run appeals and disciplinary processes in any professional environment (well, any environment, professional just implies it is more serious), you have to act and communicate impeccably.

This is why I think it is wrong for people to call out the RFL and the process as being not fit for purpose.  The process was fine, it was the people that erred.  To uphold a ban while simultaneously stating that you agree with the case for the defence is just amateurish.

  • Like 4

"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

8 hours ago, Josef K said:

I only go on this site Stanley so i don’t know which site you mean. But id imagine every club site has fans who are so blinkered no matter how many times you explain things to them and show them the evidence they will not admit their club was wrong. 

RedVee.🙄

Blinkered isn't the word, they're (almost) all an absolute embarassment lauding Mike Rush as some sort of Perry Masonesque Messiah for using a (flimsy) technicality to get Knowles off.🤦‍♂️

I've said it numerous times now that the "it wasn't unnatural movement" argument is utter codswallop (let's see if the swear filters allow that one😁). Put both your arms by your side and then try and move one of your arms slightly behind your back using your other arm (I did it last night). Unless you're into yoga or work for the Chinese State Circus it really ain't an easy or pleasant thing to attempt. Bear in mind Rugby League players are also far more muscle bound than your average Joe and they probably have even less mobility of movement in the shoulder joint then that argument really doesn't stack up.

Over & out.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours 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?

Who was on the ORP v1 and who was the author of the report with the contentious wording?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extract below taken from RedVee forum. Apologies if posted elsewhere on this thread, but I haven't spotted it.

 

  1. Brilliant piece of work by Saints

    https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/r...ealed-25080151
    "The first case took place on Tuesday evening. Saints argued, with medical evidence, that Knowles' actions on Salford's Chris Atkin did not force his arm beyond the normal range of movement, which therefore counteracted the decision to sanction him for dangerous contact. Furthermore, Saints argued that the tackle was a professional foul, with Knowles turning Atkin to slow the play the ball down.
    The operations tribunal on that night consisted of the barrister, Sean Smith, Russ Bridge, a former Leigh Centurions, Wigan Warriors and Fulham player, and Alan Hunte, a Great Britain international who enjoyed a successful club career, predominantly with St Helens but also Warrington, Hull FC and Salford.

    After deliberation, they decided to uphold the ban, citing that Knowles' actions posed an unacceptable risk of injury. But crucially, and this is the important thing, they agreed with St Helens' argument that Knowles had not forced Atkin's arm beyond the normal range of movement and accepted that his action was in an attempt to slow the play the ball down.

    This is crucial because the findings of the first tribunal were the base of St Helens' second appeal. Within hours of the case being heard, St Helens, whose case has been directed by CEO Mike Rush, contacted the RFL to state, with provisional evidence, that the verdict was unreasonable and wished to appeal again.

    Many have questioned how Saints got a second appeal just 24 hours after the first. Leeds have twice appealed appeals this year but the second hearing wasn't heard until a week later. But the rules state that a hearing will bAt this point, Saints' defence was based around the findings of the first appeal. They argued that, given the first tribunal had agreed the incident didn't take Atkin beyond the normal range of movement, it meant it wasn't possible that Knowles could have provided an unacceptable risk of injury. They argued it was, in essence, a contradiction. They also argued that, given the previous panel had accepted the incident was a professional foul, it would be unreasonable to suspend him as professional fouls have never been a bannable offence.

    As a consequence, the second tribunal, which featured judge Roger Thomas, former Halifax winger Wilf George and Danny Sculthorpe, whose playing career was largely played out at Wigan, accepted their case was valid and overturned the suspension.

    In effect, St Helens were able to win the case by using the first tribunal's words against them. It was, to a degree, a technicality. But they got the outcome they were looking for.e heard the next day should documentation be lodged before 11 AM. St Helens sent details at around 8am"
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SalfordSlim said:

Extract below taken from RedVee forum. Apologies if posted elsewhere on this thread, but I haven't spotted it.

 

  1. Brilliant piece of work by Saints

    https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/r...ealed-25080151
    "The first case took place on Tuesday evening. Saints argued, with medical evidence, that Knowles' actions on Salford's Chris Atkin did not force his arm beyond the normal range of movement, which therefore counteracted the decision to sanction him for dangerous contact. Furthermore, Saints argued that the tackle was a professional foul, with Knowles turning Atkin to slow the play the ball down.
    The operations tribunal on that night consisted of the barrister, Sean Smith, Russ Bridge, a former Leigh Centurions, Wigan Warriors and Fulham player, and Alan Hunte, a Great Britain international who enjoyed a successful club career, predominantly with St Helens but also Warrington, Hull FC and Salford.

    After deliberation, they decided to uphold the ban, citing that Knowles' actions posed an unacceptable risk of injury. But crucially, and this is the important thing, they agreed with St Helens' argument that Knowles had not forced Atkin's arm beyond the normal range of movement and accepted that his action was in an attempt to slow the play the ball down.

    This is crucial because the findings of the first tribunal were the base of St Helens' second appeal. Within hours of the case being heard, St Helens, whose case has been directed by CEO Mike Rush, contacted the RFL to state, with provisional evidence, that the verdict was unreasonable and wished to appeal again.

    Many have questioned how Saints got a second appeal just 24 hours after the first. Leeds have twice appealed appeals this year but the second hearing wasn't heard until a week later. But the rules state that a hearing will bAt this point, Saints' defence was based around the findings of the first appeal. They argued that, given the first tribunal had agreed the incident didn't take Atkin beyond the normal range of movement, it meant it wasn't possible that Knowles could have provided an unacceptable risk of injury. They argued it was, in essence, a contradiction. They also argued that, given the previous panel had accepted the incident was a professional foul, it would be unreasonable to suspend him as professional fouls have never been a bannable offence.

    As a consequence, the second tribunal, which featured judge Roger Thomas, former Halifax winger Wilf George and Danny Sculthorpe, whose playing career was largely played out at Wigan, accepted their case was valid and overturned the suspension.

    In effect, St Helens were able to win the case by using the first tribunal's words against them. It was, to a degree, a technicality. But they got the outcome they were looking for.e heard the next day should documentation be lodged before 11 AM. St Helens sent details at around 8am"

Pretty much as we’ve been saying on here provided all the information is correct. We won’t know for sure until the RFL disciplinary release there findings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Who was on the ORP v1 and who was the author of the report with the contentious wording?

I have no idea ( a job at the RFL beckons 😀)

The underneath may or may not be correct

1 hour ago, SalfordSlim said:

Extract below taken from RedVee forum. Apologies if posted elsewhere on this thread, but I haven't spotted it.

 

  1. Brilliant piece of work by Saints

    https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/r...ealed-25080151
    "The first case took place on Tuesday evening. Saints argued, with medical evidence, that Knowles' actions on Salford's Chris Atkin did not force his arm beyond the normal range of movement, which therefore counteracted the decision to sanction him for dangerous contact. Furthermore, Saints argued that the tackle was a professional foul, with Knowles turning Atkin to slow the play the ball down.
    The operations tribunal on that night consisted of the barrister, Sean Smith, Russ Bridge, a former Leigh Centurions, Wigan Warriors and Fulham player, and Alan Hunte, a Great Britain international who enjoyed a successful club career, predominantly with St Helens but also Warrington, Hull FC and Salford.

    After deliberation, they decided to uphold the ban, citing that Knowles' actions posed an unacceptable risk of injury. But crucially, and this is the important thing, they agreed with St Helens' argument that Knowles had not forced Atkin's arm beyond the normal range of movement and accepted that his action was in an attempt to slow the play the ball down.

    This is crucial because the findings of the first tribunal were the base of St Helens' second appeal. Within hours of the case being heard, St Helens, whose case has been directed by CEO Mike Rush, contacted the RFL to state, with provisional evidence, that the verdict was unreasonable and wished to appeal again.

    Many have questioned how Saints got a second appeal just 24 hours after the first. Leeds have twice appealed appeals this year but the second hearing wasn't heard until a week later. But the rules state that a hearing will bAt this point, Saints' defence was based around the findings of the first appeal. They argued that, given the first tribunal had agreed the incident didn't take Atkin beyond the normal range of movement, it meant it wasn't possible that Knowles could have provided an unacceptable risk of injury. They argued it was, in essence, a contradiction. They also argued that, given the previous panel had accepted the incident was a professional foul, it would be unreasonable to suspend him as professional fouls have never been a bannable offence.

    As a consequence, the second tribunal, which featured judge Roger Thomas, former Halifax winger Wilf George and Danny Sculthorpe, whose playing career was largely played out at Wigan, accepted their case was valid and overturned the suspension.

    In effect, St Helens were able to win the case by using the first tribunal's words against them. It was, to a degree, a technicality. But they got the outcome they were looking for.e heard the next day should documentation be lodged before 11 AM. St Helens sent details at around 8am"

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I have said that I agree that it was a penalty and also that a sin bin was appropriate.

But if he was holding his wrist to slow the play the ball - attempting to slow the play the ball is something we see from almost every player in every game - then I am disagreeing with the description that it was a 'nasty and cynical foul'.

Is it ok to punch someone in the face to slow the PTB?

If they do punch 👊 someone to slow the PTB then the worst they can receive is a sin bin if your logic is applied.

Point is the pro foul is a red herring, the issue is and always has been the position of the arm, which has nothing to do with a tackle in RL IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Personally I think we have whipped ourselves up into a frenzy on this board.

To be honest, I didn't think the actual incident was that bad.  As I said on page 1 I missed the incident live and after seeing all the comments I went back to look thinking it was going to be horrible.  In the end I thought it was a foul and sin bin but nothing more.  But if it was a ban then I would be OK with that as well.

The disciplinary and appeals process has then made a right mess of things with the ban put in place and the original appeals panel upholding it (and that should have been the end of the saga) but inexplicably stating they agree with the defence that the arm/shoulder was not put in a dangerous position.  Crazy.

There is nothing in the disciplinary process that a bit of common sense from the participants can't resolve.  It is the people at fault, not the process.

Lol with the utmost respect, when it comes to Knowles I would expect Knowles's dad to offer a more objective view than you.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Is it ok to punch someone in the face to slow the PTB?

If they do punch 👊 someone to slow the PTB then the worst they can receive is a sin bin if your logic is applied.

Point is the pro foul is a red herring, the issue is and always has been the position of the arm, which has nothing to do with a tackle in RL IMO.

Sorry, but I can't really have a conversation with someone who thinks holding a wrist and punching someone is the face is an equivalency.

That's pretty much the thinking that got Leeds some extra games for a frivolous appeal.

  • Like 1

"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

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.