Sheffield

[Chris22]

I do agree with some criticism of league express' output on occasions, but this is not one of them.

As far as I can see, they were the first media organisation to report the RFL's refusal to arbitration.

It is fair to ask why they have refused. There may be a reasonable reason such as the appeals process is not exhausted.

I also think it is fair to question why the RFL could not adduce potentially relevant correspondence in this case. Or how well thought through the judgement was when it was riddled with typos.

Having not seen the full evidence, it is difficult to judge whether the decision reached is correct and you have to have some faith that a correct conclusion has been reached.

Aston has the right to appeal. And the media has the right to report on matters arising from this case, with a critical eye, in my view.

Edited November 11, 2024 by Chris22

[M j M]

12 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

 

As far as I can see, they were the first media organisation to report the RFL's refusal to arbitration.

It is fair to ask why they have refused. There may be a reasonable reason such as the appeals process is not exhausted.

I think you answered your own question.

League Express went in portraying it in a particular way like a red top tabloid.

[LeeF]

24 minutes ago, mozzauk said:

It is a serious offence, but it isnt 18mths worth of an offence and ruining a coaches career and livelihood.. FFS I could spear tackle a player and get a lot less, or punch 7 shades out of a player and get a lot less. 

The RFL are trying to make an example of Mark, Mick and others, and all it does is make a lot of fans distrust the RFL even more than they do already.. 

The offence could have had serious consequences for the player and, based on the notes of the tribunal, is definite worth 18 months. It was a deliberate premeditated action unlike the ones you quote.

Too right the RFL should come down on this incident hard and make an example of the guilty parties. My trust in the RFL has not diminished based on what I have read

[Griff]

29 minutes ago, mozzauk said:

..... or punch 7 shades out of a player and get a lot less. 

Six months, apparently.

Half of which in the close season.

[JonM]

22 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

I also think it is fair to question why the RFL could not adduce potentially relevant correspondence in this case. Or how well thought through the judgement was when it was riddled with typos.

I spend a lot of time proofreading, and hadn't particularly noticed any typos, certainly no more than League Express usually has. The only one that jumped out at me was the reference to the Sheffield Eagles Operations Director 'Mick' rather than Mark Hannigan (in reference to his decision not to appear at the tribunal, which is described as 'disappointing'.) I assumed that was because the legal secretary or whoever took the minutes was not actually aware of the correct name.

[Griff]

6 minutes ago, JonM said:

I spend a lot of time proofreading, and hadn't particularly noticed any typos, certainly no more than League Express usually has. The only one that jumped out at me was the reference to the Sheffield Eagles Operations Director 'Mick' rather than Mark Hannigan (in reference to his decision not to appear at the tribunal, which is described as 'disappointing'.) I assumed that was because the legal secretary or whoever took the minutes was not actually aware of the correct name.

There's a reference to a cog test on Wednesday 20th July which had me scratching my head a bit before I realised they meant March (para 68).   Disappointing stuff but no more than that.

[Worzel]

40 minutes ago, mozzauk said:

It is a serious offence, but it isnt 18mths worth of an offence and ruining a coaches career and livelihood.. FFS I could spear tackle a player and get a lot less, or punch 7 shades out of a player and get a lot less. 

The RFL are trying to make an example of Mark, Mick and others, and all it does is make a lot of fans distrust the RFL even more than they do already.. 

You describe an individual moment in the heat of a match. 

The offence we're looking at here involves premeditation, willful misconduct with the time to reflect before action, and from a person in a position of authority who the game delegates trust to because it can't micro-manage decisions like this in every club. You're comparing it to a one-off event, whereas leadership failings reveal the risk of structural, repeated flaws with a high risk of either being repeated in future, or of having happened before (but not been seen, as oversight is imperfect). That is why the sentencing is in a different category.   

[JohnM]

It's s clear. Mark Aston had 14 days in which he had to lodge an appeal. 

Did he or didn't he do so?

1. Yes 

2. No.

3. If yes, on what grounds

4. If not, why not?

 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, JohnM said:

It's s clear. Mark Aston had 14 days in which he had to lodge an appeal. 

Did he or didn't he do so?

1. Yes 

2. No.

3. If yes, on what grounds

4. If not, why not?

 

The most recent linked article says that the period to appeal has been extended to today (11th November)

[Griff]

3 minutes ago, JohnM said:

It's s clear. Mark Aston had 14 days in which he had to lodge an appeal. 

 

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

The most recent linked article says that the period to appeal has been extended to today (11th November)

So, not as clear as first thought.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

 

So, not as clear as first thought.

Seems pretty clear. He was given two weeks. An extension has been granted to today.

[Griff]

19 minutes ago, Worzel said:

You describe an individual moment in the heat of a match. 

Bit more than a moment, as I recall.

Which do you think was more damaging in terms of brain health? A number of punches to the head of an already unconscious player or Matty Marsh, after passing all his tests, irrespective of whether the doctor had signed him off, playing in a game ?

 

Edited November 11, 2024 by Griff

[JohnM]

3 minutes ago, Griff said:

 

So, not as clear as first thought.

Yes. It's clear, as has been mentioned.

So tomorrow, we should expect the answers.

Did he or didn't he lodge an appeal ?

1. Yes 

2. No.

3. If yes, on what grounds

4. If not, why not?

[Impartial Observer]

1 hour ago, mozzauk said:

It is a serious offence, but it isnt 18mths worth of an offence and ruining a coaches career and livelihood.. FFS I could spear tackle a player and get a lot less, or punch 7 shades out of a player and get a lot less. 

The RFL are trying to make an example of Mark, Mick and others, and all it does is make a lot of fans distrust the RFL even more than they do already.. 

It is about protecting the game.  He has left himself and the club wide open to a lawsuit if the player in later life had issues like others who are suing both codes.

The RFL didn't decide on the sanction. It was a high court judge and two others independent people.

[Barley Mow]

30 minutes ago, Worzel said:

You describe an individual moment in the heat of a match. 

The offence we're looking at here involves premeditation, willful misconduct with the time to reflect before action, and from a person in a position of authority who the game delegates trust to because it can't micro-manage decisions like this in every club. You're comparing it to a one-off event, whereas leadership failings reveal the risk of structural, repeated flaws with a high risk of either being repeated in future, or of having happened before (but not been seen, as oversight is imperfect). That is why the sentencing is in a different category.   

I also seem to recall most people thinking that the ban for that particular 'heat of the match' incident was too lenient. A lot were suggesting bans well in excess of 18 months for that as well.

Perhaps the RFL would have issued a larger ban for that now and may have issued a lesser punishment to Aston previously.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Barley Mow said:

I also seem to recall most people thinking that the ban for that particular 'heat of the match' incident was too lenient. A lot were suggesting bans well in excess of 18 months for that as well.

Perhaps the RFL would have issued a larger ban for that now and may have issued a lesser punishment to Aston previously.

Was about to write, having gone away to think about it, that my memory was that I felt 6 months too lenient, especially as it covers, as indeed does Ashton's, 'time' rather than games, so there was a sizeable chunk of off-season.

[JonM]

13 minutes ago, Griff said:

Matty Marsh, after passing all his tests, irrespective of whether the doctor had signed him off, playing in a game ?

"Passing all his tests" is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? He has to be seen by the club doctor before he can resume contact training, let alone playing a game. He hadn't been seen at all by the club doctor - she had arranged for a neuro-assessment for the week after the Wigan game.

[Griff]

2 minutes ago, JonM said:

He hadn't been seen at all by the club doctor.....

That's something that occurred to me too.   Why not?   She was doctor for the game against Toulouse - why didn't she see him then?

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Was about to write, having gone away to think about it, that my memory was that I felt 6 months too lenient, especially as it covers, as indeed does Ashton's, 'time' rather than games, so there was a sizeable chunk of off-season.

Indeed, this in effect amounts to a 1 season ban.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Griff said:

That's something that occurred to me too.   Why not?   She was doctor for the game against Toulouse - why didn't she see him then?

Presumably because these things need to be reviewed on several occasions over a period of time, not just once.

[Griff]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Presumably because these things need to be reviewed on several occasions over a period of time, not just once.

You're missing the point.   She could have seen him every day if she wanted.   Nothing stopping her from doing that.  But she'd need to make the effort.

[JonM]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

That's something that occurred to me too.   Why not?   She was doctor for the game against Toulouse - why didn't she see him then?

He obviously didn't play in that game due to the head injury protocol having been injured the week before. Maybe he didn't travel over from Hull, or maybe she was too busy that day? 

It looks like the most up-to-date information she had was Mick Heys report of Marsh having had to take time off work due to headaches, so perhaps not too surprising that she wasn't inclined to cut corners. 

1 minute ago, Griff said:

You're missing the point.   She could have seen him every day if she wanted.   Nothing stopping her from doing that.  But she'd need to make the effort.

She presumably has a day job, as does Matty Marsh? 

[Tommygilf]

There appears to be a obfuscating combination of 2 issues.

1. Whether Aston is guilty of any misconduct.

2. The punishment for the misconduct being too harsh.

[Griff]

13 minutes ago, JonM said:

He obviously didn't play in that game due to the head injury protocol having been injured the week before. Maybe he didn't travel over from Hull, or maybe she was too busy that day? 

It looks like the most up-to-date information she had was Mick Heys report of Marsh having had to take time off work due to headaches, so perhaps not too surprising that she wasn't inclined to cut corners. 

She presumably has a day job, as does Matty Marsh? 

I can speculate myself.

On the day job point, she either has time for her side hustle or she does not.

[Tommygilf]

19 minutes ago, Griff said:

You're missing the point.   She could have seen him every day if she wanted.   Nothing stopping her from doing that.  But she'd need to make the effort.

Do you know she didn't? Do you know if there was an available time to do the assessment for both parties? Could Marsh not be bothered? Could, as is being suggested by the outcome of the tribunal, the attitude from the head coach be too devil may care to create a space for this? 

Awfully bold statement of you to make; dare I say one eyed? 

Imagine medical processes not being prioritised for the sake of rugby priorities! 

To add, none of this absolves Aston in the slightest.

Edited November 11, 2024 by Tommygilf