This week's disciplinary.

[Barley Mow]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Can't do that think about it the other way round, a guy gets sent off in an international game for something bad worth say 6 games suspension, should he only be suspended for international games?

With the amount of internationals we play these days, that could take the best part of a decade!

[Chrispmartha]

Interesting Saints seem to have got the ban lifted because they say Knowles didn't put the arm in an unnatural position.

The initial MRP report doesn't mention unnatural position as part of the charge.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

Former Saints player and member of the Operational Rules Tribunal isn't happy all the focus is on this mess.....I wonder why? 

 

[jacksy]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

There speaks a true fan.

 

 

 

ok

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

54 minutes ago, bromleybulldog said:

Just hoping that Moore sorts it all out on Saturday by sending Knowles off in the first minute for smirking in an offensive manner

Oh my word seeing Knowles sent off early would be so sweet 

Virtually every non Saints fan seems to be behind Rhinos on Saturday so it would go down well

[Dave T]

To be fair,  we shouldn't be afraid of controversy. This one is rubbish,  but many events are sold on controversy. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

4 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Former Saints player and member of the Operational Rules Tribunal isn't happy all the focus is on this mess.....I wonder why? 

 

Reminds me of Pele trying to downplay the genuine anti-poverty demonstrations in the Brazilian WC. Both trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretend it is not important 

Integrity matters in sport 

[Gomersall]

51 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Apologies I get it now. 

Who’s on first base?

[Barley Mow]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Two things jump out at me here:

1. They can't even get the post nominals of the judge right when they publish this. I'm sure they've heard that the Queen died, it should now be KC (King's Counsel) rather than QC.

2. Given the quasi-judicial nature of the proceedings, I assume the references to 'reasonableness' relate to the concept of 'Wednesbury reasonableness' which is how the courts approach cases which challenge decisions made by public bodies.

The question before the tribunal therefore seems to be, was the original decision "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have decided that way?"

That is a high standard to meet. Based on the information I've seen, I'm baffled how Saints have managed to convince the tribunal that no reasonable authority could have reached the original decision.

[gingerjon]

9 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

Who’s on first base?

Naturally.

[JohnM]

Ring-ring...ring-ring....L.O Danny. Its yer bruv here. How you doin' ? Want to stay healthy? I've a tip for you.....

Edited September 22, 2022 by JohnM

[Archie Gordon]

1 hour ago, Barley Mow said:

Two things jump out at me here:

1. They can't even get the post nominals of the judge right when they publish this. I'm sure they've heard that the Queen died, it should now be KC (King's Counsel) rather than QC.

...

And ref. ON/1147/22 relates to an earlier Titus Gwaze case.

[SUPERSTUD]

6 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

And ref. ON/1147/22 relates to an earlier Titus Gwaze case.

Doesn’t exactly fill you with confidence does it? Leon Pryce says everything is fine though

 

[LeeF]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

To be fair,  we shouldn't be afraid of controversy. This one is rubbish,  but many events are sold on controversy. 

Especially if Knowles is sent off in the first few minutes of the Final

[bobbruce]

4 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Especially if Knowles is sent off in the first few minutes of the Final

He will either be MOM or sent off it’s almost certain to happen. 

[LeeF]

So most if not all agree the following:-

The referee got it correct under current guidelines to err on the side of caution hence the sin bin. The tackle looked and still looks like foul play 

The MRP got it correct by issuing a 2 match ban

The ORP v1 (Aka Appeals Panel 1) got it correct with upholding the ban but then used the wrong word(s) which Saints used as a loophole to appeal the appeal decision

The ORP v2 (aka Appeals Panel 2) got it correct as they were boxed in by the words used by ORPv1

The only remaining question is why don’t the RFL via their own policy appeal the current decision, which they can do, as being incorrect or too lenient.
The alternative is that chicken wing type tackles will become the norm unless the current review, which had already been set up by the RFL closes this potential loophole?

[meast]

20 hours ago, SUPERSTUD said:

This outcome is seriously worrying no matter which club or player is involved. I smell a rat and it has left me feeling very uneasy in relation to the integrity of the whole process. Going forward this needs sorting big style.

Just what I was saying to my Fax supporting mate at work.

Just as the sport is on the cusp of a potential new dawn, with new backers, new positivity surrounding it, 3 days before of our the games' showpiece events and on the brink of the biggest RLWC ever, we come up with this.

I have heard from people who have said they've had enough and are now walking away from the sport, my area manager phoned me to ask what is going on with RL, my company sponsor a couple of teams, players and organisations and they seem pretty embarrassed by the negativity around rugby league today.

Personally, I think it's an absolute embarrassment, the Knowles thing, the Bateman for the Knights thing, the whole thing has possibly set rugby league back years.

I'm ashamed.

[Chris22]

50 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

He will either be MOM or sent off it’s almost certain to happen. 

I'm calling that he pulls up in the warm up.

[meast]

20 hours ago, northamptoncougar said:

Who was on this new review panel?

Mr McManus

Mrs McManus

Mr and Mrs Knowles

 

I believe.

[graveyard johnny]

on the Knowles incident - the disciplinary committee were sticking to the original decision until they got their arm twisted by saints 

[meast]

20 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Jonny Vegas, Morgan Knowles and…

 

Chris Joint, sorry Joynt.

Didn't Long fancy it?

[graveyard johnny]

1 minute ago, meast said:

Mr McManus

Mrs McManus

Mr and Mrs Knowles

 

I believe.

Mick McManus by the look of that arm grip 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, graveyard johnny said:

on the Knowles incident - the disciplinary committee were sticking to the original decision until they got their arm twisted by saints 

Clever.  Wish I had thought of that.

[hullste]

48 minutes ago, LeeF said:

So most if not all agree the following:-

The referee got it correct under current guidelines to err on the side of caution hence the sin bin. The tackle looked and still looks like foul play 

The MRP got it correct by issuing a 2 match ban

The ORP v1 (Aka Appeals Panel 1) got it correct with upholding the ban but then used the wrong word(s) which Saints used as a loophole to appeal the appeal decision

The ORP v2 (aka Appeals Panel 2) got it correct as they were boxed in by the words used by ORPv1

The only remaining question is why don’t the RFL via their own policy appeal the current decision, which they can do, as being incorrect or too lenient.
The alternative is that chicken wing type tackles will become the norm unless the current review, which had already been set up by the RFL closes this potential loophole?

I still don't think the incident was as bad as it looked and it certainly wasn't a chicken wing tackle like some have suggested however do think he is very lucky to get away without a ban. However the language used by the first review panel totally contradicted itself so you can't blame Saints for exploiting that. 

We all want to see the best players available on the biggest stage and there are already a number of top players missing on Saturday. People just need to get over it and enjoy watching what should be a fantastic game. 

[Dave T]

Does anyone have access to the minutes from the first appeal?  People appear to be quoting from it.