Jump to content

This week's disciplinary.


Dave T
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Lol with the utmost respect, when it comes to Knowles I would expect Knowles's dad to offer a more objective view than you.

ok.  Just offering my view on the incident.

I like Knowles as a player but I am confident I can have an objective view of the incident irrespective of the player involved.  If you don't think I can then fair enough.

"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


35 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Sorry, but I can't really have a conversation with someone who thinks holding a wrist and punching someone is the face is an equivalency.

That's pretty much the thinking that got Leeds some extra games for a frivolous appeal.

Never said it was equivalent, the claim is that due to the reason of putting the arm up their back was to slow the PTB, meaning that it can only be a sin bin.

So following that logic, any act by a player is a sin bin if the purpose was to slow the PTB? 

Therefore the pro foul argument is a huge red herring IMO. It's irrelevant if he did it to slow the PTB or not, the discussion is about the act, which was more than just holding their wrist as you claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SalfordSlim said:

Extract below taken from RedVee forum. Apologies if posted elsewhere on this thread, but I haven't spotted it.

 

  1. Brilliant piece of work by Saints

    https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/r...ealed-25080151
    "The first case took place on Tuesday evening. Saints argued, with medical evidence, that Knowles' actions on Salford's Chris Atkin did not force his arm beyond the normal range of movement, which therefore counteracted the decision to sanction him for dangerous contact. Furthermore, Saints argued that the tackle was a professional foul, with Knowles turning Atkin to slow the play the ball down.
    The operations tribunal on that night consisted of the barrister, Sean Smith, Russ Bridge, a former Leigh Centurions, Wigan Warriors and Fulham player, and Alan Hunte, a Great Britain international who enjoyed a successful club career, predominantly with St Helens but also Warrington, Hull FC and Salford.

    After deliberation, they decided to uphold the ban, citing that Knowles' actions posed an unacceptable risk of injury. But crucially, and this is the important thing, they agreed with St Helens' argument that Knowles had not forced Atkin's arm beyond the normal range of movement and accepted that his action was in an attempt to slow the play the ball down.

    This is crucial because the findings of the first tribunal were the base of St Helens' second appeal. Within hours of the case being heard, St Helens, whose case has been directed by CEO Mike Rush, contacted the RFL to state, with provisional evidence, that the verdict was unreasonable and wished to appeal again.

    Many have questioned how Saints got a second appeal just 24 hours after the first. Leeds have twice appealed appeals this year but the second hearing wasn't heard until a week later. But the rules state that a hearing will bAt this point, Saints' defence was based around the findings of the first appeal. They argued that, given the first tribunal had agreed the incident didn't take Atkin beyond the normal range of movement, it meant it wasn't possible that Knowles could have provided an unacceptable risk of injury. They argued it was, in essence, a contradiction. They also argued that, given the previous panel had accepted the incident was a professional foul, it would be unreasonable to suspend him as professional fouls have never been a bannable offence.

    As a consequence, the second tribunal, which featured judge Roger Thomas, former Halifax winger Wilf George and Danny Sculthorpe, whose playing career was largely played out at Wigan, accepted their case was valid and overturned the suspension.

    In effect, St Helens were able to win the case by using the first tribunal's words against them. It was, to a degree, a technicality. But they got the outcome they were looking for.e heard the next day should documentation be lodged before 11 AM. St Helens sent details at around 8am"

Thanks for that. Interesting reading.

Very weak work from the first panel IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I have said that I agree that it was a penalty and also that a sin bin was appropriate.

But if he was holding his wrist to slow the play the ball - attempting to slow the play the ball is something we see from almost every player in every game - then I am disagreeing with the description that it was a 'nasty and cynical foul'.

A lot of players hold the wrist,  that is true.  They don't force the arm up the players back. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Never said it was equivalent, the claim is that due to the reason of putting the arm up their back was to slow the PTB, meaning that it can only be a sin bin.

So following that logic, any act by a player is a sin bin if the purpose was to slow the PTB? 

Therefore the pro foul argument is a huge red herring IMO. It's irrelevant if he did it to slow the PTB or not, the discussion is about the act, which was more than just holding their wrist as you claim.

Can you please stop saying 'by your logic' when my logic does not include punching someone in the face to slow the play the ball down. 

There are techniques that are used to slow down the play the ball - some of which could turn into foul play if executed badly or pushed too far.

But the idea of using an analogy of punching people in the face to slow the play the ball down is just silly.

"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

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

A lot of players hold the wrist,  that is true.  They don't force the arm up the players back. 

Indeed. And I think I am right in saying that's why it was a penalty and he was sent to the sin bin.

"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

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Can you please stop saying 'by your logic' when my logic does not include punching someone in the face to slow the play the ball down. 

There are techniques that are used to slow down the play the ball - some of which could turn into foul play if executed badly or pushed too far.

But the idea of using an analogy of punching people in the face to slow the play the ball down is just silly.

No it's not, you seem to be saying, forgive me if wrong, that if the purpose of the act was to slow the PTB it cannot be anything other than a sin bin? 

So that very reasoning is flawed as it would suggest any act for that purpose is ok when it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

No it's not, you seem to be saying, forgive me if wrong, that if the purpose of the act was to slow the PTB it cannot be anything other than a sin bin? 

So that very reasoning is flawed as it would suggest any act for that purpose is ok when it isn't.

No. That is not what I am saying.

  • Like 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

6 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

No it's not, you seem to be saying, forgive me if wrong, that if the purpose of the act was to slow the PTB it cannot be anything other than a sin bin? 

So that very reasoning is flawed as it would suggest any act for that purpose is ok when it isn't.

 Nobody is saying that not even Saints. 

Edited by bobbruce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dkw said:

I thin sometimes on an enthusiasts forum like this we lose track of what things are like in the real world, people thinking this will somehow be detrimental to the sport as a whole are way off. It will nark fans for a while, some might huff and puff but in general it will have zero effect. 

The same was said about that thug Ben Flowers attack on an unconscious Lance Hohaia in the final, yet it had no overriding negative impact at all as far as I can tell, at last no long lasting ones.

That was Lance Hohiha’s best game in a Saints shirt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After 28 pages of back and forth, let me summarise what I think about this saga.

  • Knowles was attempting to slow down the play the ball by holding the wrist.
     
  • Lot's of players attempt to slow the play the ball by holding levers etc. but Knowles got this wrong and put the player in a dangerous position.  I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to cause damage but it was a foul.
     
  • My view was that the sin bin was enough but I accept that others felt it was worse and I didn't argue when the original 2 game ban came in.
     
  • I can't believe I have to say this but, as I said, it was an attempt to slow the play the ball down that went wrong.  And no, I don't think someone punching a player in the face to slow the play the ball down should just be a sin bin!
     
  • There was no conspiracy to get Knowles off.  If the RFL wanted to 'direct' the panel they would have just told the original Match Review Panel panel to say not guilty or on field sanction sufficient.  What happened was the first appeal panel cocked up and Saints took advantage of that #### up.  Incompetence over conspiracy which is pretty much the way of the world in my opinion.

"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

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

Didn't the ref say it was 'dangerous contact'? (I could be wrong on that)

He did yes.

"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

19 minutes ago, Dunbar said:
  •  
  • There was no conspiracy to get Knowles off.  If the RFL wanted to 'direct' the panel they would have just told the original Match Review Panel panel to say not guilty 

You sure?

It would be exactly in the RFL's style to miss something and only later try and get what they want ....regardless of the fall out, integrity or consistency 

 

Edited by Bedfordshire Bronco
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

After 28 pages of back and forth, let me summarise what I think about this saga.

  • Knowles was attempting to slow down the play the ball by holding the wrist.
     
  • Lot's of players attempt to slow the play the ball by holding levers etc. but Knowles got this wrong and put the player in a dangerous position.  I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to cause damage but it was a foul.
     
  • My view was that the sin bin was enough but I accept that others felt it was worse and I didn't argue when the original 2 game ban came in.
     
  • I can't believe I have to say this but, as I said, it was an attempt to slow the play the ball down that went wrong.  And no, I don't think someone punching a player in the face to slow the play the ball down should just be a sin bin!
     
  • There was no conspiracy to get Knowles off.  If the RFL wanted to 'direct' the panel they would have just told the original Match Review Panel panel to say not guilty or on field sanction sufficient.  What happened was the first appeal panel cocked up and Saints took advantage of that #### up.  Incompetence over conspiracy which is pretty much the way of the world in my opinion.

I agree with pretty much all of that but have to clarify my point you refer too.

I never said you believe punching someone in the face to slow the PTB is a sin bin.

I said following the logic that it can only be a sin bin with no ban if it's a professional foul due to the act of putting the arm up the back of a player was to slow the PTB. Subtle but important difference.

I also don't believe slowing the PTB is a professional foul unless it's to stop a try or try scoring opportunity.

I don't recall that being the case here, and believe MK was sin binned due to the arm position not the slowing of the PTB, even if that was the reason he did it.

I believe the raising of the pro foul and or the slowing of the PTB is irrelevant and therefore a red herring.

The panel shouldn't take that into account, only whether the actual twist of the arm was or wasn't worthy of a ban.

It was poor wording of the first review that was exploited to have the ban removed. I'm uncomfortable that RL bans are now so complicated a basic understanding of Law is required, it's just bizarre.

I never thought it's a conspiracy, I don't believe they are corrupt, I'm not sure it's even incompetence as they probably never thought slight wording would be twisted (pardon the pun) to remove a ban.

I'm sure they will be more careful in future. 

I also don't blame Saints for taking advantage of this although I am uncomfortable with it. Some people will see it as clever, some will see it as exploitation, it's probably both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

You sure?

It would be exactly in the RFL's style to mess up originally and then back track 

 

Am I sure?  Well, I guess it is impossible to be sure but I very heavily lean to towards it just being incompetence.

But from a motivation perspective, why would the RFL want Knowles to play in the Grand Final, we have seen players sit out Grand Finals before, why would they interfere (in what would be a corrupt way) just to put one player into the game.  How would they benefit?

  • Like 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

This whole thing about a professional foul is another red herring.  That isn't a professional foul in any kind of scenario.  

Maybe the RFL should appeal against this technicality. 

Edited by Dave T
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Am I sure?  Well, I guess it is impossible to be sure but I very heavily lean to towards it just being incompetence.

But from a motivation perspective, why would the RFL want Knowles to play in the Grand Final, we have seen players sit out Grand Finals before, why would they interfere (in what would be a corrupt way) just to put one player into the game.  How would they benefit?

I suspect they've had influence to avoid Morgan missing the England game. Avoiding a superstar like him missing the games club showpiece at OT is an added bonus 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I suspect they've had influence to avoid Morgan missing the England game. Avoiding a superstar like him missing the games club showpiece at OT is an added bonus 

You mean they were prepared to undermine the whole system just to ensure he would be free to play in the Fiji warm up game?

  • Like 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

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This whole thing about a professional foul is another red herring.  That isn't a professional foul in any kind of scenario.  

Maybe the RFL should appeal against this technicality. 

I am not sure if this is aimed at me (and apologies if it wasn't) but I am not claiming that this was a professional foul.  It was dangerous contact and foul play.

  • Like 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

15 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am not sure if this is aimed at me (and apologies if it wasn't) but I am not claiming that this was a professional foul.  It was dangerous contact and foul play.

But the whole basis of Saints argument to get him off is that it was a professional foul not dangerous contact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

But the whole basis of Saints argument to get him off is that it was a professional foul not dangerous contact

That may be the case but I don't work for St Helens, I am stating what my take on the situation was.  If it wasn't aimed at me then fair enough.

As I say, the whole disciplinary process was one giant #### up.

  • Like 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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...