Sheffield

[AB Knight]

Mr Marsh himself has shared the petition on his socials.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, AB Knight said:

Mr Marsh himself has shared the petition on his socials.

The petition also seems a bit of a distraction.

Any appeal needs to be lodged by Tuesday.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, AB Knight said:

Mr Marsh himself has shared the petition on his socials.

Further proof that the players really do need protecting from themselves. 

[ricky]

Is this a club or a cult?

[Click]

30 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Further proof that the players really do need protecting from themselves. 

Can't even blame the players supporting him, when you have the games biggest journalists also seemingly on his side.

[gazza77]

9 hours ago, AB Knight said:

Mr Marsh himself has shared the petition on his socials.

Must have had a bang to the head to be doing that.

[Barley Mow]

https://www.totalrl.com/campaign-for-sheffield-boss-mark-aston-gains-momentum-as-rfl-claiming-legal-privilege-on-key-issue/

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, Barley Mow said:

https://www.totalrl.com/campaign-for-sheffield-boss-mark-aston-gains-momentum-as-rfl-claiming-legal-privilege-on-key-issue/

The deadline for the appeal is today, I think?

[M j M]

There's a lot of loyal but dim people involved in Rugby League.

[Tommygilf]

36 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The deadline for the appeal is today, I think?

I believe so.

[sheddingswasus]

If the coach knowingly broke these rules given the severity of head injury and consequences then he deserves the ban. If the player is  can party to the issue the. He should he banned also to show how the league treats HI’s. 

[RP London]

8 hours ago, Barley Mow said:

https://www.totalrl.com/campaign-for-sheffield-boss-mark-aston-gains-momentum-as-rfl-claiming-legal-privilege-on-key-issue/

While i have sympathy for the fact that protocols may not have been met properly and processes not followed which is problematic there seems to be one key fundamental in here. "On the morning of the Wigan game (Friday 22 March), the RFL received direct notification from Hannah Cole (Eagles’ medic) that she would not clear Matty Marsh to play." it goes on to say that Mick and Mark Aston were not copied into the email, which is problematic and there should be a consequence to this too. However, when reading the statements from Aston and Heyes this becomes known by them during that day and therefore should have been acted on. 

Yes absolutely look at the processes, pull more people over the coals for it becuase the whole thing is a right old mess, and the RFLs governance can indeed be called into question if they have a system that would have made this easier but didnt use it. However, the fundamental still seems to be true, Aston and Heyes were made aware on Friday that Matty Marsh had not been passed fit by the club medic, therefore, he should not have played. 

Also I find it interesting but not surprising that the article states that in the letter it says “A key detail to keep front of mind: Matty Marsh was completely fit to play – this isn’t disputed by anyone, including the RFL." which is bizarre when you then read the quote I pasted earlier that is also in the letter saying that the Medic said he wasn't passed as fit to play.. so it is disputed and he wasn't passed as fit to play... 

Its as if people are trying to make an argument where there isn't one. 

Just becuase something was done wrong by the RFL it doesn't mean Aston was correct, or that he shouldn't get a ban. If he had not been made aware and this hinged on him not being copied in on the email etc then I would be agreeing that he should not be banned, but the evidence given is that he was made aware of it and wilfully ignored it. If that is incorrect then we will hear that in the appeal becuase anything else around paperwork etc is just deflection IMHO.

Maybe 18 months is too long (RFL regulations should stipulate this and if it doesn't then beat the RFL with another stick and debate the length of the ban), but we have to show that we mean what we say about head injuries. If the RFL have mucked up then go after them, make them make their systems more robust (it appears they get this, a bit, with the tender for a new system), who didnt pass the information along etc.. absolutely ask those questions but Aston should not, with the knowledge he gained during the day, have played Matty Marsh. 

Edited November 5, 2024 by RP London

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

While i have sympathy for the fact that protocols may not have been met properly and processes not followed which is problematic there seems to be one key fundamental in here. "On the morning of the Wigan game (Friday 22 March), the RFL received direct notification from Hannah Cole (Eagles’ medic) that she would not clear Matty Marsh to play." it goes on to say that Mick and Mark Aston were not copied into the email, which is problematic and there should be a consequence to this too. However, when reading the statements from Aston and Heyes this becomes known by them during that day and therefore should have been acted on. 

Yes absolutely look at the processes, pull more people over the coals for it becuase the whole thing is a right old mess, and the RFLs governance can indeed be called into question if they have a system that would have made this easier but didnt use it. However, the fundamental still seems to be true, Aston and Heyes were made aware on Friday that Matty Marsh had not been passed fit by the club medic, therefore, he should not have played. 

Also I find it interesting but not surprising that the article states that in the letter it says “A key detail to keep front of mind: Matty Marsh was completely fit to play – this isn’t disputed by anyone, including the RFL." which is bizarre when you then read the quote I pasted earlier that is also in the letter saying that the Medic said he wasn't passed as fit to play.. so it is disputed and he wasn't passed as fit to play... 

Its as if people are trying to make an argument where there isn't one. 

Just becuase something was done wrong by the RFL it doesn't mean Aston was correct, or that he shouldn't get a ban. Maybe 18 months is too long (RFL regulations should stipulate this and if it doesn't then beat the RFL with another stick and debate the length of the ban), but we have to show that we mean what we say about head injuries. If the RFL have mucked up then go after them, make them make their systems more robust (it appears they get this, a bit, with the tender for a new system), who didnt pass the information along etc.. absolutely ask those questions but Aston should not, with the knowledge he gained during the day, have played Matty Marsh. 

Exactly, 100%. That core issue of knowing Marsh wasn't eligible according to the Doctor isn't actually a question is it? 

There is more than an air of jobs for the boys around this issue and a lot of the reporting on it. 

Just to add, the bill for the game's annual insurance went up 4 four fold, purely because of the risks and legal actions surrounding long term impacts of head injuries. That is front and centre of the RFL's thinking too and failure to act appropriately regarding that issue will ultimately will cost the game far more than Aston's suspension ever will.

[Worzel]

I'm sure there were things that could have been done better in the process, both before the game and in the RFLs investigation afterwards, but having read the minutes of the disciplinary meeting some things are very clear:

1. The player wasn't passed as being fit to play by the responsible medic, who had valid reasons

2. The Sheffield coaches were actively discussing how to game the system in order to play the player, which goes to their integrity

3. Ultimately the coaches chose to play the player, despite the player having not been passed fit to play

Given those pretty clear facts, I think it's pretty reasonable that bans were given. It doesn't matter how much other good things Aston has done, whether he's a "good bloke", whether the Sheffield medic was a mildly annoying person, whether she is a Doctor or a Nurse, whether the RFL did or didn't send the right letter at the right time. Whatever else. It doesn't matter.

The player should not have played, and the coaches put him on the pitch not in error but in a calculated act because they thought that either their need for the player was more important than his welfare, or that their judgement of the player's physical condition was more important than others. That's just wrong, plain wrong. 

[Worzel]

On 01/11/2024 at 16:59, M j M said:

Jeez another article which shows just what a state British Rugby Leaugue journalism is. Anything vaguely complicated and they just fall apart.

It's worse than that. It's the lowest grade of "I've met the guy and he is a good bloke" unprofessional, ignore-the-facts-for-a-mate nonsense. 

[M j M]

What's depressing is how many go along with that. That tweet by Davidson is followed by loads of "great journalism" replies. I mean really what the hell! It's terrible journalism, in fact some of the things written there about the club Doctor/Doctor equivalent are quite shockingly stupid and verging on misogynist. 

 

[Impartial Observer]

As it has been said before why did they ever play him in a game they had no chance of winning?

[Expatknight]

Like I said before some people need saving from themselves 

only 1 fact is relevant

MARSH WAS NOT CLEARED TO PLAY BY THE DR!!!

no ifs no buts .

[Impartial Observer]

I see John Davidson is stirring the pot more on twitter.  I think he lives in Sheffield, is he hoping more people there will sign up to buy his stories?

 

Edited November 5, 2024 by Impartial Observer

[sheddingswasus]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Exactly, 100%. That core issue of knowing Marsh wasn't eligible according to the Doctor isn't actually a question is it? 

There is more than an air of jobs for the boys around this issue and a lot of the reporting on it. 

Just to add, the bill for the game's annual insurance went up 4 four fold, purely because of the risks and legal actions surrounding long term impacts of head injuries. That is front and centre of the RFL's thinking too and failure to act appropriately regarding that issue will ultimately will cost the game far more than Aston's suspension ever will.

Having reread all this thread, I just can’t believe Aston is appealing. I think the ban is too light.  He has put the future of his player at risk. The player has put his future at risk by not following the protocols. They have all ignored the doctor. 

On appeal I think the ban should be increased and the player also banned to show an example to others as he is clearly complicit in the whole event 

[JonM]

4 hours ago, RP London said:

Also I find it interesting but not surprising that the article states that in the letter it says “A key detail to keep front of mind: Matty Marsh was completely fit to play – this isn’t disputed by anyone, including the RFL." which is bizarre when you then read the quote I pasted earlier that is also in the letter saying that the Medic said he wasn't passed as fit to play.. so it is disputed and he wasn't passed as fit to play... 

A "key detail to keep front of mind" is that Marsh had not even been seen by the club doctor by the day of the game. That is how carefully and thoroughly the Sheffield coaching team adhered to the process. So no-one is in a position to say that he was fit to play.

[JohnM]

If you have watched Martyn's latest podcast #63, you'll have seen and heard him mention that someone has brought the situation to the attention of the Speaker of the House of Commons Sir Lindsay Hoyle, saying "he has asked for a complete breakdown of what happened with perhaps a view of taking it further" 36 minutes into the podcast).

Edited November 6, 2024 by JohnM

[Hopie]

14 minutes ago, JohnM said:

If you have watched Martyn's latest podcast #63, you'll have seen and heard him mention that someone has brought the situation to the attention of the Speaker of the House of Commons Sir Lindsay Hoyle, saying "he has asked for a complete breakdown of what happened with perhaps a view of taking it further" 36 minutes into the podcast).

I watched it but didn't mention it as I thought last week's summary was embarrassing enough. 

[Angelic Cynic]

https://www.patreon.com/posts/115464743

 

Could be questions in The House.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

So Hoyle could soon prove that he's a bigger idiot than I thought....