Dave T Posted September 23, 2022 Author Share Posted September 23, 2022 25 minutes ago, Dunbar said: I am not sure if this is aimed at me (and apologies if it wasn't) but I am not claiming that this was a professional foul. It was dangerous contact and foul play. No it was aimed at the Saints appeal mate, your discussion reminded me of that claim by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 1 minute ago, Dave T said: No it was aimed at the Saints appeal mate, your discussion reminded me of that claim by them. How dare you! "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...
David Dockhouse Host Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said: But the whole basis of Saints argument to get him off is that it was a professional foul not dangerous contact I don't see how it was a professional foul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 1 minute ago, David Dockhouse Host said: I don't see how it was a professional foul? It wasn't. It was dangerous contact. But the Saints argument goes like this... The tackled players arm didn't exceed its natural range and so couldn't have been a foul (dangerous contact) so it must have been 'just' an attempt to slow/disrupt the play the ball. The match review panel didn't agree and banned him for 2 games for dangerous contact. Then the first appeals hearing upheld the ban but (bizarrely) stated that they agreed with the defence laid out by Saints. Then Saints took that to the second appeals panel and said, how can it be dangerous contact if the review panel agreed the arm wasn't extended beyond its natural range? The second appeals panel could have just said the first review panel were talking nonsense and it was dangerous but they decided to support the Saints argument. (That is not what I think happened in the incident by the way... I am discussing what Saints said). 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 More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 35 minutes ago, Dunbar said: It wasn't. It was dangerous contact. But the Saints argument goes like this... The tackled players arm didn't exceed its natural range and so couldn't have been a foul (dangerous contact) so it must have been 'just' an attempt to slow/disrupt the play the ball. The match review panel didn't agree and banned him for 2 games for dangerous contact. Then the first appeals hearing upheld the ban but (bizarrely) stated that they agreed with the defence laid out by Saints. Then Saints took that to the second appeals panel and said, how can it be dangerous contact if the review panel agreed the arm wasn't extended beyond its natural range? The second appeals panel could have just said the first review panel were talking nonsense and it was dangerous but they decided to support the Saints argument. (That is not what I think happened in the incident by the way... I am discussing what Saints said). The problem is (and this is why it’s a farce imo) Is that the second appeal panel were not judging on the actual incident, they made no comment on it, it wasn’t an appeal of the MRPs findings only the ‘technicality’ and wording of the first appeals judgement, so IMO they shouldn’t be able to rule on the actual ban, they should have said it needs a ‘retrial’. The second appeal judiciary have overturned a ban on an incident which they didn’t review. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted September 23, 2022 Author Share Posted September 23, 2022 49 minutes ago, Dunbar said: It wasn't. It was dangerous contact. But the Saints argument goes like this... The tackled players arm didn't exceed its natural range and so couldn't have been a foul (dangerous contact) so it must have been 'just' an attempt to slow/disrupt the play the ball. The match review panel didn't agree and banned him for 2 games for dangerous contact. Then the first appeals hearing upheld the ban but (bizarrely) stated that they agreed with the defence laid out by Saints. Then Saints took that to the second appeals panel and said, how can it be dangerous contact if the review panel agreed the arm wasn't extended beyond its natural range? The second appeals panel could have just said the first review panel were talking nonsense and it was dangerous but they decided to support the Saints argument. (That is not what I think happened in the incident by the way... I am discussing what Saints said). We really do need to read the full finding from the first appeal, as we are getting a second/third hand account of that hearing. But this has been one of my issues with the disciplinary for a while - they often go out of their way to acknowledge and stress that players didn't do things on purpose, there was no intent, and almost try and play down the incidents. I think this is possibly an example of that and it's come back to bite them on the ass. But we really are only getting a snippet of the information. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 16 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: The problem is (and this is why it’s a farce imo) Is that the second appeal panel were not judging on the actual incident, they made no comment on it, it wasn’t an appeal of the MRPs findings only the ‘technicality’ and wording of the first appeals judgement, so IMO they shouldn’t be able to rule on the actual ban, they should have said it needs a ‘retrial’. The second appeal judiciary have overturned a ban on an incident which they didn’t review. 5 minutes ago, Dave T said: We really do need to read the full finding from the first appeal, as we are getting a second/third hand account of that hearing. But this has been one of my issues with the disciplinary for a while - they often go out of their way to acknowledge and stress that players didn't do things on purpose, there was no intent, and almost try and play down the incidents. I think this is possibly an example of that and it's come back to bite them on the ass. But we really are only getting a snippet of the information. Agree with both of these. "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...
David Dockhouse Host Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 1 hour ago, Dunbar said: It wasn't. It was dangerous contact. But the Saints argument goes like this... The tackled players arm didn't exceed its natural range and so couldn't have been a foul (dangerous contact) so it must have been 'just' an attempt to slow/disrupt the play the ball. The match review panel didn't agree and banned him for 2 games for dangerous contact. Then the first appeals hearing upheld the ban but (bizarrely) stated that they agreed with the defence laid out by Saints. Then Saints took that to the second appeals panel and said, how can it be dangerous contact if the review panel agreed the arm wasn't extended beyond its natural range? The second appeals panel could have just said the first review panel were talking nonsense and it was dangerous but they decided to support the Saints argument. (That is not what I think happened in the incident by the way... I am discussing what Saints said). Thanks, just seems like semantics to me that have been used to discredit the original ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 10 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said: Thanks, just seems like semantics to me that have been used to discredit the original ban. Yes, it certainly was. As far we know from the information we have been given to date anyway. It was a foul up by the first appeal panel. Some will say Saints have taken the mickey and some will say they have been smart. I guess they will say they did things by book and so within their rights. I am not as outraged as most because I didn't think it was worth a 2 match ban in the first place (despite being dangerous contact) but I can absolutely see why others are. 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 More sharing options...
David Dockhouse Host Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 1 hour ago, Dunbar said: Yes, it certainly was. As far we know from the information we have been given to date anyway. It was a foul up by the first appeal panel. Some will say Saints have taken the mickey and some will say they have been smart. I guess they will say they did things by book and so within their rights. I am not as outraged as most because I didn't think it was worth a 2 match ban in the first place (despite being dangerous contact) but I can absolutely see why others are. Think I said earlier is it clever or exploitation, it's probably a bit of both. Some will think more of one and some the other. It's just a poor look for Rugby League. But a shameless opportunity to plug this again Ian is coming on the show again next week, let's see what we have to discuss after tomorrow I'm going early, if you see me say hi 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