Jump to content

This week's disciplinary.


Dave T

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

That’s what im saying

No you blamed the appeals panel. What’s caused this is the original decision which left them open to this. 


  • Replies 709
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted
2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

No you blamed the appeals panel. What’s caused this is the original decision which left them open to this. 

No, read the report, this appeal was appealing the first appeal panels findings, not the original MRP decision.

which is why throwing the whole thing out is incompetence 

Posted
4 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

If that posted earlier is Correct it seems they’ve got off with it on a technicality because the original panel was inept. 

The error came (if there was one) from the first appeals panel.

The Match Review Panel deemed it dangerous conduct and foul play.

The appeal panel upheld the ban but critically said "the panel agreed with the MRP verdict but accepted the opponent’s arm stayed in a natural range."

It is this wording that Saints have jumped on to get the decision overturned - their argument being how can it be dangerous contact if the arm stayed in a natural range.

"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

Posted
4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

No, read the report, this appeal was appealing the first appeal panels findings, not the original MRP 

Posted

I find the whole thing very unappealing.

The "Dark Ages" is a term referring to life at the RFL under the new regime. It's characterized by a decline in openness, professionalism, transparency and  achievements, 
 
Posted
2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I find the whole thing very unappealing.

I find the whole game unappealing nowadays. 

Rugby Union the only game in the world were the spectators handle the ball more than the players.

Posted
2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I find the whole thing very unappealing.

And depressing 

I understand why the authorities want Knowles in the Final and first England game but morally it's wrong to brush it under the carpet 

Player safety has to come first 

So should not looking like a poorly run, cheap, tin pot sport run by incompetent people 

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The error came (if there was one) from the first appeals panel.

The Match Review Panel deemed it dangerous conduct and foul play.

The appeal panel upheld the ban but critically said "the panel agreed with the MRP verdict but accepted the opponent’s arm stayed in a natural range."

It is this wording that Saints have jumped on to get the decision overturned - their argument being how can it be dangerous contact if the arm stayed in a natural range.

I’m going off the letter I think Chris posted earlier which says. 

 

The basis for this argument was that as the original tribunal had agreed that the action of Mr
Knowles was a professional foul in an attempt to slow the play the ball down; they could not say that
either the player's shoulder or indeed the player's wrist at any point was in an unnatural position,
although it appeared that the attacking player's shoulder was put to the end of the range of its

Posted
1 minute ago, jacksy said:

I find the whole game unappealing nowadays. 

There speaks a true fan.

 

 

 

The "Dark Ages" is a term referring to life at the RFL under the new regime. It's characterized by a decline in openness, professionalism, transparency and  achievements, 
 
Posted
14 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

No, read the report, this appeal was appealing the first appeal panels findings, not the original MRP decision.

which is why throwing the whole thing out is incompetence 

Again this is what it says. 
 

The basis for this argument was that as the original tribunal had agreed that the action of Mr
Knowles was a professional foul in an attempt to slow the play the ball down; they could not say that
either the player's shoulder or indeed the player's wrist at any point was in an unnatural position,
although it appeared that the attacking player's shoulder was put to the end of the range of its

Posted
16 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

No, read the report, this appeal was appealing the first appeal panels findings, not the original MRP decision.

which is why throwing the whole thing out is incompetence 

My head hurts.

Posted
2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Again this is what it says. 
 

The basis for this argument was that as the original tribunal had agreed that the action of Mr
Knowles was a professional foul in an attempt to slow the play the ball down; they could not say that
either the player's shoulder or indeed the player's wrist at any point was in an unnatural position,
although it appeared that the attacking player's shoulder was put to the end of the range of its

They are talking about the original appeals tribunal

Posted

My backside hurts. It feels like us fans have been shafted good and proper.

If I had any money, I'd get a proper lawyer on the case, not some barrack-room Scouse solicitor like Saints just used.

The "Dark Ages" is a term referring to life at the RFL under the new regime. It's characterized by a decline in openness, professionalism, transparency and  achievements, 
 
Posted
14 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Again this is what it says. 
 

The basis for this argument was that as the original tribunal had agreed that the action of Mr
Knowles was a professional foul in an attempt to slow the play the ball down; they could not say that
either the player's shoulder or indeed the player's wrist at any point was in an unnatural position,
although it appeared that the attacking player's shoulder was put to the end of the range of its

That's the first appeal they're referring to. It's the verdict of the appeal that has been overturned.

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)

Posted
15 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Again this is what it says. 
 

The basis for this argument was that as the original tribunal had agreed that the action of Mr
Knowles was a professional foul in an attempt to slow the play the ball down; they could not say that
either the player's shoulder or indeed the player's wrist at any point was in an unnatural position,
although it appeared that the attacking player's shoulder was put to the end of the range of its

The original tribunal in this paragraph is the first appeal panel though, not the Match Review Panel.

The match Review Panel simply concluded that it was dangerous contact and imposed a 2 match penalty.  It is this first review (appeal) panel that muddied the waters by agreeing with the decision but stating that the players shoulder or wrist was not placed in an unnatural position.

Saints have used this wording to convince the 2nd appeals panel that the original decision of dangerous contact and a ban was, therefore, wrong.

"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

Posted
11 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

They are talking about the original appeals tribunal

I know that my point it’s the original tribunals words that have dropped them in it. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

That's the first appeal they're referring to. It's the verdict of the appeal that has been overturned.

Ah right my mistake 

Posted
1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

The original tribunal in this paragraph is the first appeal panel though, not the Match Review Panel.

The match Review Panel simply concluded that it was dangerous contact and imposed a 2 match penalty.  It is this first review (appeal) panel that muddied the waters by agreeing with the decision but stating that the players shoulder or wrist was not placed in an unnatural position.

Saints have used this wording to convince the 2nd appeals panel that the original decision was, therefor, wrong.

Ah right my mistake. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

That's the first appeal they're referring to. It's the verdict of the appeal that has been overturned.

Apologies I get it now. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Ah right my mistake 

No worries. They couldn't have made it less clear if they'd tried TBH.

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)

Posted
3 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I know that my point it’s the original tribunals words that have dropped them in it. 

Precisely - however simply dropping the whole thing is where it's incorrect, the initial appeals panel agreed with the MRP, it should have gone through the appeals process again not simply been dropped because this new appeal wasn't contesting the MRP.

It's incompetence, and embarrassing.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.