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

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

You say we are getting hung up on the word inconclusive but the ruling would not have included the phrase "the standard of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt" If they had seen anything conclusive in the video.

 

That's just explaining their operating processes and terms, which they should do. They are a disciplinary tribunal that can determine an employee of a club's ability to work for them for a set period of time - they don't have the same "we made a mistake" indemnity that Referees, rightly, have on the pitch.

Again, that isn't a very high legal burden of proof to reach with all the evidence presented to them. To not reach it, the evidence must have been sufficiently woeful.

Which it would be really, considering the only person giving evidence who ever said they saw a punch couldn't then point said moment out on multiple HD camera angles...

And Jonny Lomax was bleeding before the incident in question, not as a result of it as thought at the time.

And of course, the real killer here, McDonnell didn't punch anyone, so shouldn't be punished with punching anyone.

[Dunbar]

Do they explain their operating process and terms in every appeal ruling?

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That's just explaining their operating processes and terms, which they should do. They are a disciplinary tribunal that can determine an employee of a club's ability to work for them for a set period of time - they don't have the same "we made a mistake" indemnity that Referees, rightly, have on the pitch.

Again, that isn't a very high legal burden of proof to reach with all the evidence presented to them. To not reach it, the evidence must have been sufficiently woeful.

Which it would be really, considering the only person giving evidence who ever said they saw a punch couldn't then point said moment out on multiple HD camera angles...

And Jonny Lomax was bleeding before the incident in question, not as a result of it as thought at the time.

And of course, the real killer here, McDonnell didn't punch anyone, so shouldn't be punished with punching anyone.

I really do think your logic is jumping around a lot on this thread.

One minute you are telling us not to get hung up on the word inconclusive (regarding the video evidence) and the next you are suggesting that the evidence must have been 'woeful'.

Sorry, but you can have that both ways.

[Tommygilf]

20 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Do they explain their operating process and terms in every appeal ruling?

I really do think your logic is jumping around a lot on this thread.

One minute you are telling us not to get hung up on the word inconclusive (regarding the video evidence) and the next you are suggesting that the evidence must have been 'woeful'.

Sorry, but you can have that both ways.

Where the burden of proof is the key part of the inquiry, and the defence is "this didn't happen" then it is relevant to explain it. Have a look back through past tribunals if you would like.

Not at all, I'm just having to explain everything in minute detail for you. The evidence supporting the case that McDonnell was guilty of the alleged offence must have been woeful to not pass that bar. For the reasons explained above, that's probably why it was woeful.

Inconclusive, I'm pretty sure now, is being used as a kindness to protect the referee in this instance. Even he can't explain why he "saw" what he "saw", in inverted commas because obviously you can't see something that didn't happen - which the report is keen to stress is the case as it states clearly that McDonnell did not punch anyone.

[Dunbar]

22 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Not at all, I'm just having to explain everything in minute detail for you.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

[Tommygilf]

26 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Thanks. I appreciate it.

It would be much easier if you weren't fatalistic about "precedents" and just saw the judgement for what it is.

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

Actually I think the basis of their decision is incorrect. I believe they should have done what they do in the NRL under these circumstances in that they go with the officials unless there is evidence to overturn them. They've overturned the officials report on the basis of not having video evidence to support it, not on the basis of having evidence to overturn it.

I actually feel sorry for the TJ in this instance as he's effectively been portrayed as a liar just because there wasn't a camera angle that conclusively showed the punch.  

I am assuming that they had sufficient video evidence for every second of the incident, including various angles, that showed every moment of the charged players actions.  Making it very clear the player in question did not show any punch action in every second of the video's they had to watch.

They would have taken this decision knowing every impact upon disciplinary panel and officials - it would not have been taken lightly.   Despite any wording to hang an argument on they would have diligently looked for any punch so as not to reverse decisions plus if they had every moment of the incident on the videos they watched.  

I am sure they would have been looking for every element of action that could suggest a punch or possible punch, including any moments of the incident not on video for which they could say the video didn't cover every moment. The fact they reversed the decision to me at least means absolutely their was no punch or action that could be said to be a punch on every moment of the video's and of which every moment of the incident was covered on the video.

In my mind they would have been doing everything they could to support the ref and TJ. and the fact they reversed the panels decisions I personally would be confident they had absolutely no grounds for sticking with what the TJ thought he saw.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

It would be much easier if you weren't fatalistic about "precedents" and just saw the judgement for what it is.

Thanks again.

[Saint Toppy]

5 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I am assuming that they had sufficient video evidence for every second of the incident, including various angles, that showed every moment of the charged players actions.  Making it very clear the player in question did not show any punch action in every second of the video's they had to watch.

 

I think the fact their verdict was that the video evidence was inconclusive suggests that they didn't have any clear evidence either way of whether a punch was thrown or not thrown.

If this was being based purely on the video evidence then i'd be happy for them to go on the balance of probability that a punch wasn't thrown given the video evidence didn't show definitely whether one was or wasn't thrown. But they had the officials report which stated that the TJ saw a punch being thrown.

So what surprises me is the fact they they've made a decision based on inconclusive video evidence and not on the officials report.

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

So what surprises me is the fact they they've made a decision based on inconclusive video evidence and not on the officials report.

It doesn't matter how many posts we share and how much we analyse this incident, this really is the bottom line.

The panel said that they have a burden of proof and the official report that a punch was thrown is not enough, in and of its own right, to provide that proof.  Especially, and here is the key, when they did not explain that the video evidence conclusively rules out that a punch was thrown.

So, without video evidence to back them up, the incidents of foul play in match reports from the officials are now not proof that foul play occured.

[dkw]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

A policy many in the game don't like because it forces referees to guess btw. 

You're getting hung up on "inconclusive". Literally everything else in that statement says they cannot and did not see McDonnell throw a punch. 

How is "getting hung up" on the term when they included it in the verdict, I dont see why you keep saying this. Its the verdict, its how its been ruled on, its no different than any other verdict wording.

[Tommygilf]

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. 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.

...

[dkw]

Double post.

Edited June 2, 2023 by dkw

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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. 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.

...

Thanks.  That backs up my point really well that an official report of an incident is now not seen as evidence without video proof to back it up.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Thanks.  That backs up my point really well that an official report of an incident is now not seen as evidence without video proof to back it up.

No. It isn't sufficient evidence when the video evidence, and other testimonies, and the referee themself subsequently, suggest otherwise. HTH.

[M j M]

How much evidence do you need. There were eight to ten cameras following the action, none of which saw anything to suggest a punch was thrown. The main circumstantial evidence, Lomax bleeding, was proven to be unrelated to the incident.

The weight of evidence that the touch judge made a major error is so overwhelming that it's a bit bizarre to continue framing it as if the official has been stitched up. If this were a try/no try decision we wouldn't get as hung up about overruling refereeing mistakes as you are on this one.

 

 

 

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, M j M said:

The weight of evidence that the touch judge made a major error is so overwhelming that it's a bit bizarre to continue framing it as if the official has been stitched up. If this were a try/no try decision we wouldn't get as hung up about overruling refereeing mistakes as you are on this one.

 

Quite the opposite.  I think they have made things worse by not coming out and expicitly stating that there was no punch thrown.

The try/no try is an intersting analogy.  If the decision had gone up as no try (for example) and the evidence was inconcluisve then the video ref decision goes with the on field decision.

[JF1]

The other thing nobody has mentioned is that the sending off may have been a contributory factor in Leeds losing the game. Taken to extremes,it could theoretically have been the difference between,say,relegation or not winning a league championship.

That said,I do feel we have opened a can of worms by not supporting the TJ. Even if he was wrong,it was an honest error. We all make mistakes.

[Tommygilf]

17 minutes ago, JF1 said:

The other thing nobody has mentioned is that the sending off may have been a contributory factor in Leeds losing the game. Taken to extremes,it could theoretically have been the difference between,say,relegation or not winning a league championship.

That said,I do feel we have opened a can of worms by not supporting the TJ. Even if he was wrong,it was an honest error. We all make mistakes.

Its fine, hopefully the mistakes aren't made again, as you say everyone makes them.

I don't think any person at the tribunal could look at the evidence presented and decide to impose a ban on McDonnell. They've tried their utmost to spare anyone's blushes and not throw anyone under the bus in recognising that fact.

Leeds got the punishment, unjustly many might argue, but given the TJ thought he saw a punch and that was what had caused the cut to Lomax, fair enough they made a decision given the information they had. It is good that they have challenged this and rectified it.

FWIW, I'm surprised sending offs where the main match official hasn't seen the incident directly and the VR is there don't automatically get asked for a VR check.

[GUBRATS]

You lot still harping on about this ?

[Dunbar]

22 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

You lot still harping on about this ?

Yes.  I think I am really really really close to getting @Tommygilf , @Chrispmartha and @M j M to change their mind on this one.

[Old Frightful]

After 18 pages I thought I'd have a look and see what was going on as I assumed it was a Wigan thread.

My mistake, as you were.

[V02]

7 hours ago, M j M said:

How much evidence do you need. There were eight to ten cameras following the action, none of which saw anything to suggest a punch was thrown. The main circumstantial evidence, Lomax bleeding, was proven to be unrelated to the incident.

The weight of evidence that the touch judge made a major error is so overwhelming that it's a bit bizarre to continue framing it as if the official has been stitched up. If this were a try/no try decision we wouldn't get as hung up about overruling refereeing mistakes as you are on this one.

Think the touchie has been dropped for this weekend also?

[M j M]

5 minutes ago, V02 said:

Think the touchie has been dropped for this weekend also?

Interesting.

 

[GUBRATS]

Barrack room Lawyers springs to mind 

No wonder our legal system in this country is in the mess it is , taking years to get criminals to court , let alone ' inquiries ' taking years and costing millions of tax payers money straight into the pockets of bullshitting ' briefs ' 

He didn't hit him , the touch judge made a mistake , that's because he is human 

End of story

[redjonn]

10 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

I think the fact their verdict was that the video evidence was inconclusive suggests that they didn't have any clear evidence either way of whether a punch was thrown or not thrown.

If this was being based purely on the video evidence then i'd be happy for them to go on the balance of probability that a punch wasn't thrown given the video evidence didn't show definitely whether one was or wasn't thrown. But they had the officials report which stated that the TJ saw a punch being thrown.

So what surprises me is the fact they they've made a decision based on inconclusive video evidence and not on the officials report.

Maybe  but as I say they would not of overturned unless it was clear no punch.  They would be aware of perceptions and overturning officials unless they had strong evidence the player on charge did not punch.

We disagree.

BTW... whilst they used the word inconclusive they didn't say inconclusive video evidence.  Correct me if I am wrong

It may be inconclusive because the video evidence went against what the TJ said. Thus inconclusive maybe because TJ wasn't subsequently certain at the review panel or didn't give a definitive answer.