Fri 26th May: SL: Leeds Rhinos v St Helens KO 20:00 (Sky)

[Dunbar]

Just to put my take on the whole thing.

As mentioned, it was a very niggly game with a lot of verbals and taunting.  Both teams looked as bad as each other.

But Lomax went a bit too far not just rubbing a head but grabbing Walters by the head and giving him stick.

McDonnell shouldn't have run in.  But to be honest, I'm not that critical of him.  I'm happy with players sticking up for each other.

As for a punch being thrown.  We need to trust our officials and it is a big call to say he was wrong and there would need to be very very clear evidence to say he was wrong.  In that melee, I can't see that being available. 

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I get that but Its worth a go IMO. Theres camera footage which doesn’t show a punch so i don’t think it would be deemed frivolous in this case.

Leeds can keep up their frivolous appeal collection.

[V02]

30 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Leeds can keep up their frivolous appeal collection.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61782/operational-rules-tribunal-–-may-30

Or not 

[Chrispmartha]

Overturned.

Saints meltdown incoming

I said at the game and after watching it multiple times there was no punch.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, V02 said:

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61782/operational-rules-tribunal-–-may-30

Or not 

Fair enough.

I find this interesting "We accept entirely that the touch judge was genuinely certain that at the time he saw a punch. However, he was not able to point out the punch on the footage. We cannot rule out the fact that he may have been genuinely mistaken and therefore cannot be satisfied to the appropriate standard that a punch was thrown and we allow the appeal.”

I am not sure it is a precident that we want to set - i.e. unless video evidence backs up the officials then the officials were mistaken.

But on a personal level I am glad that he has not been banned.

[Chrispmartha]

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Fair enough.

I find this interesting "We accept entirely that the touch judge was genuinely certain that at the time he saw a punch. However, he was not able to point out the punch on the footage. We cannot rule out the fact that he may have been genuinely mistaken and therefore cannot be satisfied to the appropriate standard that a punch was thrown and we allow the appeal.”

I am not sure it is a precident that we want to set - i.e. unless video evidence backs up the officials then the officials were mistaken.

But on a personal level I am glad that he has not been banned.

I think as long as the official is at the hearing its fair enough, if he can’t actually say where the punch was after reviewing the extra footage then you can’t really ban the player.

[bobbruce]

50 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I get that but Its worth a go IMO. Theres camera footage which doesn’t show a punch so i don’t think it would be deemed frivolous in this case.

Whether it’s frivolous or not will surely depend on what’s grounds Leeds are basing the appeal. Last time I seem to remember there appeal had no basis in the laws and that’s why it was deemed frivolous. 

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Whether it’s frivolous or not will surely depend on what’s grounds Leeds are basing the appeal. Last time I seem to remember there appeal had no basis in the laws and that’s why it was deemed frivolous. 

Well its been successful this time.

They based it on the fact that he didn’t throw a punch.

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I think as long as the official is at the hearing its fair enough, if he can’t actually say where the punch was after reviewing the extra footage then you can’t really ban the player.

I'm not totally convinced by this.  As I say, if you were showing that a specific incident happened through clear video evidence then that is very different to proving that something didn't happen because there was no video evidence showing it to happen.

But the good people on the panel were happy to overule the touch judge's testimony so, while i am not overly keen on the precedent here, that an official's testimony has to be validated by explicitl video evidence, that is the end if it I guess. 

 

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Dunbar said:

I'm not totally convinced by this.  As I say, if you were showing that a specific incident happened through clear video evidence then that is very different to proving that something didn't happen because there was no video evidence showing it to happen.

But the good people on the panel were happy to overule the touch judge's testimony so, while i am not overly keen on the precedent here, that an official's testimony has to be validated by explicitl video evidence, that is the end if it I guess. 

 

But if the footage (more than we have seen) shows no punch and even the official that originally gave the decision can’t see it after reviewing it then I’m not sure how the ban can stand.

[Chrispmartha]

The biggest issue is why didn’t the MRP see all the footage in the first place.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

But if the footage (more than we have seen) shows no punch and even the official that originally gave the decision can’t see it after reviewing it then I’m not sure how the ban can stand.

If justice has been served then I am happy with the outcome.

As I say, the only thing I am worried about here is the precedent. Are we saying now that every piece of foul play cited by an official has to be backed up by evidence that it did happen otherwise we will say it didn't occur?

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

If justice has been served then I am happy with the outcome.

As I say, the only thing I am worried about here is the precedent. Are we saying now that every piece of foul play cited by an official has to be backed up by evidence that it did happen otherwise we will say it didn't occur?

I think when it involves a red card and a 2 match ban then the clubs are obviously allowed to challenge that, so no, not every piece of foul play. 
 

isn’t this the whole point of the appeal process?

[M j M]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

If justice has been served then I am happy with the outcome.

Justice would have been served had the player not been incorrectly sent off with the potentially material impact it had on the result of the game.

Compounding that travesty with a ban for the non-existent foul play would have been utterly bonkers.

[Dunbar]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

I think when it involves a red card and a 2 match ban then the clubs are obviously allowed to challenge that, so no, not every piece of foul play. 
 

isn’t this the whole point of the appeal process?

Yes, indeed it is.

And, as I say, if no punch was thrown and that was evidenced beyond doubt then of course the appeal should have been upheld.

As I say, I worry now that a match official's testimony at tribunal now has to be backed up by video evidence otherwise it won't be considered trustworthy.  But I suspect this won't come up too often for it to be an issue... I hope not.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, M j M said:

Justice would have been served had the player not been incorrectly sent off with the potentially material impact it had on the result of the game.

Compounding that travesty with a ban for the non-existent foul play would have been utterly bonkers.

Do you understand my concern here?

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, indeed it is.

And, as I say, if no punch was thrown and that was evidenced beyond doubt then of course the appeal should have been upheld.

As I say, I worry now that a match official's testimony at tribunal now has to be backed up by video evidence otherwise it won't be considered trustworthy.  But I suspect this won't come up too often for it to be an issue... I hope not.

I cant see it happening that much because in fairness the officials don’t seem to get these big calls wrong that often IMO.

 

[M j M]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Do you understand my concern here?

Not really. If we were dealing with a single camera in the stand that would be one thing. Instead we're talking about multiple camera angles potentially including those of the club's own camera teams (no idea if these are admissible but they should be). 

It was very clear on Friday night that McDonnell hadn't thrown a punch, I'm very surprised the MRP didn't sort this before it got to this stage. 

[V02]

 

 

27 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I'm not totally convinced by this.  As I say, if you were showing that a specific incident happened through clear video evidence then that is very different to proving that something didn't happen because there was no video evidence showing it to happen.

But the good people on the panel were happy to overule the touch judge's testimony so, while i am not overly keen on the precedent here, that an official's testimony has to be validated by explicitl video evidence, that is the end if it I guess. 

 

I agree in the context of say racial abuse. But if a game is on Sky and there are multiple different camera angles which fail to show something, it is reasonable to think that it didn't happen. Otherwise, it would be visible (or at least plausible). How can you prove something didn't happen otherwise? 

[Dunbar]

My concern is not that a video proves that something didn't happen. That is justice served.

My concern is if a club now says, "show us on the video where it did happen otherwise it didn't happen".

Anyway, it seems my concern is in the minority and so I will bow to the wisdom of the crowd.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Dunbar said:

My concern is not that a video proves that something didn't happen. That is justice served.

My concern is if a club now says, "show us on the video where it did happen otherwise it didn't happen".

Anyway, it seems my concern is in the minority and so I will bow to the wisdom of the crowd.

But Leeds didn’t do that, they went with the footage and showed it didn’t happen.

if they had just said, show us the footage you might have a point.

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

But Leeds didn’t do that, they went with the footage and showed it didn’t happen.

if they had just said, show us the footage you might have a point.

But here is what the review panel notes said.

"No punch can be seen on the footage, and it was conceded by the RFL Compliance Manager on behalf of the Match Review Panel that the footage was inconclusive.  We were able to view the incident from a number of angles and did not see a punch thrown.  We accept entirely that the touch judge was genuinely certain that at the time he saw a punch. However, he was not able to point out the punch on the footage".

so...

1. the footgage was inconclusive (I assume inconclusive in both asserting that a punch was thrown and a punch not thrown).

2. The match official said he saw a punch but couldn't identify it on the video.

3. So the panel concluded there was no punch.

It seems to me that this sets the precedence that video footage is needed to prove an incident occurred and not just the testimony of an official.  Otherwise it is just 'inconclusive'.

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Dunbar

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

But here is what the review panel notes said.

"No punch can be seen on the footage, and it was conceded by the RFL Compliance Manager on behalf of the Match Review Panel that the footage was inconclusive.  We were able to view the incident from a number of angles and did not see a punch thrown.  We accept entirely that the touch judge was genuinely certain that at the time he saw a punch. However, he was not able to point out the punch on the footage".

so...

1. the footgage was inconclusive (I assume inconclusive in both asserting that a punch wad thrown and a punch not thrown).

2. The match official said he saw a punch but couldn't identify it on the video.

3. So the panel concluded there was no punch.

It seems to me that this sets the precedence that video footage is needed to prove an incident occurred and not just the testimony of an official.  Otherwise it is just 'inconclusive'.

 

Honestly i think you’re overthinking this.

 

[redjonn]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

But here is what the review panel notes said.

"No punch can be seen on the footage, and it was conceded by the RFL Compliance Manager on behalf of the Match Review Panel that the footage was inconclusive.  We were able to view the incident from a number of angles and did not see a punch thrown.  We accept entirely that the touch judge was genuinely certain that at the time he saw a punch. However, he was not able to point out the punch on the footage".

so...

1. the footgage was inconclusive (I assume inconclusive in both asserting that a punch wad thrown and a punch not thrown).

2. The match official said he saw a punch but couldn't identify it on the video.

3. So the panel concluded there was no punch.

It seems to me that this sets the precedence that video footage is needed to prove an incident occurred and not just the testimony of an official.  Otherwise it is just 'inconclusive'.

 

What was of interest to me with the RFL statement iwas that they said the following:

"It showed beyond doubt that Jonny Lomax was injured and bleeding heavily before the incident involving James McDonnell."

Why put that into the statement unless the fact Lomax was seen to be injured and bleeding then that was a contributing factor to thinking a punch was thrown... if not material to any decision by officials why make a point of it...

[Josef K]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

Overturned.

Saints meltdown incoming

I said at the game and after watching it multiple times there was no punch.

No meltdown from me Chris i wasn’t at the game and i didn’t see a punch thrown on tv the replay’s, and i’m sure those at Sky didn’t mention a punch being thrown.

I don’t blame Leeds for appealing or any club for that matter if they think they have a case.
Id imagine some Saints fans and the anti-Leeds brigade will be raging now on Facebook & Twitter, which is why i stay away from those cesspools.