Jump to content

This week's disciplinary.


Recommended Posts

Picking Bateman is a joke for the knights, he is a fully fledged international player and no way should S Wane or who ever is behind this be allowed to make a mockery of the Disciplinary system. I want all our best players available for the world Cup but this is plain wrong. 

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


Well, as expected, that was a waste of everyone’s time. No precedent out there that’s seen anyone go from two games to zero, so I’m not sure what the aim of the appeal actually was. Granted, any extension is likely to effect England rather than Saints but considering he was bang to rights, there was no chance Knowles was ever going to play on Saturday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Moove said:

Knowles appeal unsuccessful, not a frivolous appeal though so still a two game ban.

I think Leeds have every right to ask why this appeal isn't frivolous but theirs were this year.

  • Like 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Is any of this looking good?

  1. Our critics remark we are just a bunch of Butch Dingles kicking the proverbial out of each other.
  2. The RFL simultaneously looking clueless, self serving, biased and making up as they go along.
  3. The refs appearing to be inconsistent and weak.
  4. The supporters hurled into a "culture war" between those wokists who read the science and want to diminish the neurological risks and the biff brigade denouncing it as natural.

St Helens did a tremendous hatchet job on Salford. Neutered their attacking blaze with a "robust" approach that was in and out of the Laws. Use of the head, shoulder, chicken winging, eye gorging (is that real) and professional fouls. All it needed was a finger up someone's sphincter.

A lack of firm and consistent refereeing  on the day and a comprehensive response from the RFL has endorsed, enabled and clarified the rough house way. . 

Its a mess but a mess of our making. Shame there is too many vested interests wishing it to kept it that way.

Don’t forget the colour of the Saints shirt Mr Haggis, that had the official’s on their side even before KO. The horrible bunch of Dick Dastardly’s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dunbar said:

I think Leeds have every right to ask why this appeal isn't frivolous but theirs were this year.

Surely that depends on what was appealed. Leeds pleaded guilty but appealed the ban and seeing as the ban was set in stone because of his previous record it was deemed frivolous. After pleading guilty there was literally nothing they could show that would get him off. Certainly not a completely unrelated tackle which is apparently what they did show. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Josef K said:

I don’t even know why Saints bothered appealing what a waste of time, Knowles should’ve accepted his ban. I have zero sympathy for him. 

It might’ve been a case of trying to keep the player happy by doing everything possible to give him a chance. No matter how futile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Surely that depends on what was appealed. Leeds pleaded guilty but appealed the ban and seeing as the ban was set in stone because of his previous record it was deemed frivolous. After pleading guilty there was literally nothing they could show that would get him off. Certainly not a completely unrelated tackle which is apparently what they did show. 

That's what I said, they have every right to ask the question.

I cannot see any grounds on which Saints could appeal the Knowles decision.  It was the most visible and clear incident the panel have probably ever seen and so once they have made the decision on the severity, what is left to discuss?

If it is the severity of the punishment they are questioning then how is that different to Leeds questioning the severity of Martin's punishment. 

Anyway, as I say, I think a question on why this wasn't frivolous is reasonable. 

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I think Leeds have every right to ask why this appeal isn't frivolous but theirs were this year.

I don't see why they can't. Probably worth them asking about the Tanginoa and Sao ones too. In fact they should have got in touch with Hull as they've had three unsuccessful but non-frivolous appeals in the last year or so. Presumably they already know about the reasoning behind the Prior one.

Personally I thought the two games was fair and the appeal a bit daft. I can see why it might not be frivolous though if they've demonstrated similar cases receiving lower punishments. Depends what they actually presented I guess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

Exactly what I said he'd get and results in minimal impact at the World Cup (in effect missing just one game).

The Knights are playing two games this autumn but all the articles suggest that Bateman will only use one of his banned games for the Knights. 

With two Knights games and the Fiji game, in theory Bateman could be available for Samoa (not that I like the playing of the system).

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

That's what I said, they have every right to ask the question.

I cannot see any grounds on which Saints could appeal the Knowles decision.  It was the most visible and clear incident the panel have probably ever seen and so once they have made the decision on the severity, what is left to discuss?

If it is the severity of the punishment they are questioning then how is that different to Leeds questioning the severity of Martin's punishment. 

Anyway, as I say, I think a question on why this wasn't frivolous is reasonable. 

My take on this is that Leeds appeal was frivolous the minute the accepted the guilty charge. As no matter how good there argument was he wasn’t getting it downgraded. Saints by the looks of it pleaded not guilty to the charge so had potential to reduce the punishment. Their appeal might’ve been garbage but they appealed the right thing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dunbar said:

The Knights are playing two games this autumn but all the articles suggest that Bateman will only use one of his banned games for the Knights. 

With two Knights games and the Fiji game, in theory Bateman could be available for Samoa (not that I like the playing of the system).

I think the 2nd Knights game is the same weekend as the Fiji game so can only count as a single match against his ban.

Clubs use friendlies and reserve games against bans so nothing new or unusual.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dunbar said:

The Knights are playing two games this autumn but all the articles suggest that Bateman will only use one of his banned games for the Knights. 

With two Knights games and the Fiji game, in theory Bateman could be available for Samoa (not that I like the playing of the system).

Everything I have seen says 1 knights game and the Fiji game. I presume as the Fiji game is 1 day after the 2nd Knights game it really would be extracting the urine to use both (and there is probably some clause stopping that - no idea but it would make sense).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

My take on this is that Leeds appeal was frivolous the minute the accepted the guilty charge. As no matter how good there argument was he wasn’t getting it downgraded. Saints by the looks of it pleaded not guilty to the charge so had potential to reduce the punishment. Their appeal might’ve been garbage but they appealed the right thing. 

Harry Newman pleaded not guilty, got 2 matches, appealed and got an extra match.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Harry Newman pleaded not guilty, got 2 matches, appealed and got an extra match.

Saints claimed it was a professional foul but not foul play one would have a completely different out come. What did Newman appeal did he say he didn’t shout at the ref. Leeds have put a few ###### poor appeals in it doesn’t mean every unsuccessful appeal is now frivolous. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Saints claimed it was a professional foul but not foul play one would have a completely different out come. What did Newman appeal did he say he didn’t shout at the ref. Leeds have put a few ###### poor appeals in it doesn’t mean every unsuccessful appeal is now frivolous. 

The referee stated it was dangerous contact when he sent Knowles to the bin.

To claim it wasn't foul play and just a professional foul is frivolous in my view as it was specifically punished as foul play.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...