bobbruce Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 (edited) 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 Edited September 22, 2022 by Chrispmartha 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. 3 "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 More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: No, read the report, this appeal was appealing the first appeal panels findings, not the original MRP Edited September 22, 2022 by bobbruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 I find the whole thing very unappealing. 2 “Bouncing on beds, I remember from childhood, is a great depression reliever.” ― Robert M. Pirsig, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksy Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 2 minutes ago, JohnM said: I find the whole thing very unappealing. I find the whole game unappealing nowadays. 2 Rugby Union the only game in the world were the spectators handle the ball more than the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedfordshire Bronco Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 1 minute ago, jacksy said: I find the whole game unappealing nowadays. There speaks a true fan. “Bouncing on beds, I remember from childhood, is a great depression reliever.” ― Robert M. Pirsig, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hallucinating Goose Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 Maybe I've read that wrong but it seems to be suggesting it is the attacking players fault for allowing Knowles to twist his arm, or trunk as it says because apparently he's an elephant now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gomersall Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 (edited) 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. Edited September 22, 2022 by JohnM 2 “Bouncing on beds, I remember from childhood, is a great depression reliever.” ― Robert M. Pirsig, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bromleybulldog Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 Just hoping that Moore sorts it all out on Saturday by sending Knowles off in the first minute for smirking in an offensive manner 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 (edited) 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. Edited September 22, 2022 by Dunbar 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 More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 2 minutes ago, bobbruce said: Ah right my mistake No worries. They couldn't have made it less clear if they'd tried TBH. 1 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 More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 Just now, bobbruce said: Apologies I get it now. Ignore that GJ I’m not apologising twice to you. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 17 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: They are talking about the original appeals tribunal Apologies I get it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. 4 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