This week's disciplinary.

[Chris22]

A handy insight, especially given the RFL's failure to publish minutes.

 

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Counting reserve games is silly. Simply shouldn't happen.

(By and large, assuming Super League and the Challenge Cup as being the same for admin purposes, "serve your ban in the competition in which the offence occurred" seems to work).

Anyway, I look forward to someone picking up a one match ban in the World Cup before being immediately loaned out to a club who then happen to arrange a senior friendly for which they are included in the squad.

My understanding is that you need approval for which games to count, and I don't think I've seen examples of clubs arranging games to get round these.

But I can see the merits in both approaches (accepting some tidying up of loopholes). Didn't you highlight that football limit bans to club for club offences, whereas RU have the same approach as us I understand.

[UTK]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There isn't too much of an issue in serving your ban in internationals. I don't disagree with Rimmer, I think it can work both ways, but I don't see a major issue with a banned player being banned for internationals. As long as there is consistency across the comps I think.

The England Knights / Bateman request should be rejected imho - however I believe we allow a reserve game to count in SL if there is no first team game, so there is a consistency there. The Fiji game is fine being counted as a ban.

I think this messy situation shows that there maybe needs to be a touch of tidying, but it broadly works fine.

There's no consistency across comps though, the judiciary systems don't run on common structures. 

The problem in RL is that two governing bodies from Australia and England commission both judiciaries which can impact the World Cup, this gives these bodies significant power compared to other top competing nations. As we've seen with Knowles the processes of these judiciaries are not infallible and therefore any bias present within that system has the potential to have a significant impact on the World Cup.

It's a blatant conflict of interest to give these two governing bodies power over the availability of their own and opposition competitors availability for the World Cup. Australia has handed JWH a significant ban that will impact NZ in the WC while the RFL has rather dubiously revoked Knowles ban so that he plays the final and Englands preparation for the WC is not impacted, these types of power imbalances are a terrible look for the legitimacy of the World Cup.

[Dave T]

Just now, UTK said:

There's no consistency across comps though, the judiciary systems don't run on common structures. 

 

Yes - that's a challenge, and I raised that this week.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Dave T said:

Didn't you highlight that football limit bans to club for club offences, 

I believe they do. In part, probably, because otherwise you'd have the FA lining up to ban all foreigners just before a World Cup. There are exceptions - such as if someone pushes a ref (football takes this seriously, RL is getting a bit lax about it) when it will be a timed ban and enforced across the board.

[Chrispmartha]

23 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

A handy insight, especially given the RFL's failure to publish minutes.

 

That makes the whole process sound like an absolute farce.

 

[Chrispmartha]

So let me get this straight if Rod Studd is correct then saints said that these 'holds' are used in Judo and by the Police so it's fine?

 

Really?

[gingerjon]

25 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

A handy insight, especially given the RFL's failure to publish minutes.

 

So, because the panel decided to be equivocal in a summary, the whole ban is to be thrown out.

That really does make it worse. And I wasn't sure it could be worse.

Dog's dinner.

(Plus, as an aside, I could do without the smug ranting about the 'uninformed' given how poor the RL media consistently is when it comes to actual reporting.)

[gingerjon]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

So let me get this straight if Rod Studd is correct then saints said that these 'holds' are used in Judo and by the Police so it's fine?

 

Really?

Yup.

Police restraints are known for not using any unnatural force. It's like being tickled by a puppy who then checks you're okay.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yup.

Police restraints are known for not using any unnatural force. It's like being tickled by a puppy who then checks you're okay.

Reckon Leeds team should bring some tazers along

Then use Judo throws for every tackle.

 

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Reckon Leeds team should bring some tazers along

"We checked with the Met and they said they are a normal part of the process"

[jacksy]

4 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

A right good ticking off from his mummy I imagine! 

I don't know, I don't remember. I'm off to work, it's marginally less depressing than this thread. 

He got two matches.

[Chrispmartha]

So if the 2nd appeal found the first appeal to not be correct surely it's either a 'retrial' or the original MRP decision should stand.

I can't believe they've actually made themselves look even more incompetent, I didn't think that was possible.

[johnh1]

Perhaps any team playing against Saints should be made to wear handcuffs.

[Damien]

45 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

A handy insight, especially given the RFL's failure to publish minutes.

 

Studd's rantings on Twitter are bizarre to say the least

[jacksy]

Tony Smith should contact the NYPD. I understand they have some interesting holds they could teach us.

[Chrispmartha]

Leeds Martin Appeal was deemed frivolous because they used evidence of other tackles that were deemed not to be similar.

Judo and Police examples? all good apparently

 

 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Studd's rantings on Twitter are bizarre to say the least

He's in a tricky spot with this - he's backed the MRP to the hilt all season, but if he backs this he's actually going against the MRP.

[Jughead]

It just reads as really poor from The RFL that they’ve come up with such contradictory nonsense. Should it have been expunged completely? Arguably, the decision needed to be made last night as the twenty-one man squads are to be announced today, so they’ve just wiped the ban altogether. Why they did that is up for debate right now, but you’d expect a retrial. Were the appeals panel not allowed to adjudicate on a retrial? Was that not in their remit?

Pretty shambolic from the RFL, can’t really blame Saints for spotting and going ahead with pursuing this, when it should never have been allowed to get to that point in the first place. 

As is the case already, there’s a lot of questions to be asked. Not sure the disciplinary process moving forward and it’s credibility. 

[Chrispmartha]

12 minutes ago, Jughead said:

It just reads as really poor from The RFL that they’ve come up with such contradictory nonsense. Should it have been expunged completely? Arguably, the decision needed to be made last night as the twenty-one man squads are to be announced today, so they’ve just wiped the ban altogether. Why they did that is up for debate right now, but you’d expect a retrial. Were the appeals panel not allowed to adjudicate on a retrial? Was that not in their remit?

Pretty shambolic from the RFL, can’t really blame Saints for spotting and going ahead with pursuing this, when it should never have been allowed to get to that point in the first place. 

As is the case already, there’s a lot of questions to be asked. Not sure the disciplinary process moving forward and it’s credibility. 

I don't blame Saints for any of this, it's not even about not wanting Knowles to play, if we need saints players banning to be able to win we don't deserve to be champions.

It's just utter incompetence at every step from the RFL, the latest info makes them sound even worse.

You can't just expunge the whole ban just because they thought the Appeal Judiciary got it wrong, its either retrial or original punishment stands.

Not to be too hyperbolic but this has put enormous pressure on the players,  the ref, video ref and future decision of the MRP.

[Just Browny]

8 minutes ago, Jughead said:

It just reads as really poor from The RFL that they’ve come up with such contradictory nonsense. Should it have been expunged completely? Arguably, the decision needed to be made last night as the twenty-one man squads are to be announced today, so they’ve just wiped the ban altogether. Why they did that is up for debate right now, but you’d expect a retrial. Were the appeals panel not allowed to adjudicate on a retrial? Was that not in their remit?

Pretty shambolic from the RFL, can’t really blame Saints for spotting and going ahead with pursuing this, when it should never have been allowed to get to that point in the first place. 

As is the case already, there’s a lot of questions to be asked. Not sure the disciplinary process moving forward and it’s credibility. 

Regardless of the rights and wrongs (actually just wrongs) of this case it feels strange to me that we have a refereeing model which requires referees to make a snap judgment - and we generally accept that they will get a few wrong - and yet we try to set up the judiciary to be some kind of Supreme Court where punishments can be thrown out on technicalities rather than a judgment on the offence itself.

It's completely bizarre for Knowles to get off for some kind of 'mis-trial' - everyone saw what he did even if we might have different views on its severity.

[Chrispmartha]

[Dave T]

Those minutes are an embarrassment.

I wouldn't be signing those off.

[The Future is League]

1 hour ago, Chris22 said:

A handy insight, especially given the RFL's failure to publish minutes.

 

When any sporting business doesn't publish minutes after something like this it says to me they have something to hide

[The Future is League]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

That's a cop out by the RFL. Just when you think that the RFL can't be more inept they come out with this.