Barley Mow Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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! 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunsletgreenandgold Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 Former Saints player and member of the Operational Rules Tribunal isn't happy all the focus is on this mess.....I wonder why? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksy Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 1 hour ago, JohnM said: There speaks a true fan. ok 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 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 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted September 22, 2022 Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 To be fair, we shouldn't be afraid of controversy. This one is rubbish, but many events are sold on controversy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedfordshire Bronco Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gomersall Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 51 minutes ago, bobbruce said: Apologies I get it now. Who’s on first base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barley Mow Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 9 minutes ago, Gomersall said: Who’s on first base? Naturally. 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...
JohnM Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 (edited) 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 “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...
Archie Gordon Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERSTUD Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meast Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. 2 Huddersfield Giants Supporters Association Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris22 Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meast Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 20 hours ago, northamptoncougar said: Who was on this new review panel? Mr McManus Mrs McManus Mr and Mrs Knowles I believe. Huddersfield Giants Supporters Association Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graveyard johnny Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 on the Knowles incident - the disciplinary committee were sticking to the original decision until they got their arm twisted by saints 1 2 see you later undertaker - in a while necrophile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meast Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 20 hours ago, Chrispmartha said: Jonny Vegas, Morgan Knowles and… Chris Joint, sorry Joynt. Didn't Long fancy it? Huddersfield Giants Supporters Association Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graveyard johnny Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 1 minute ago, meast said: Mr McManus Mrs McManus Mr and Mrs Knowles I believe. Mick McManus by the look of that arm grip 3 see you later undertaker - in a while necrophile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. 2 "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...
hullste Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted September 22, 2022 Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 Does anyone have access to the minutes from the first appeal? People appear to be quoting from it. 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