Sheffield

[Hopie]

20 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

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

 

Could be questions in The House.

Hey look, its all those talking points from the articles about this matter, what a coincidence!

[JohnM]

I disagree profoundly with League Expresses position on this and other issues but some while ago the paper was criticised as not being challenging enough. That clearly had changed, which is fine. 

[Tommygilf]

So has an appeal gone in or not?

[M j M]

23 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I disagree profoundly with League Expresses position on this and other issues but some while ago the paper was criticised as not being challenging enough. That clearly had changed, which is fine. 

Writing utterly foolish articles based on misinformation and Good Blokeness and isn't "challenging" it's media malpractice.

[LeeF]

11 hours ago, Angelic Cynic said:

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

 

Could be questions in The House.

It reads like I’m being picked on for something I did do but am not going to say I did because for and it’s everyone else’s fault 

[Impartial Observer]

Have the club backed him through this?

[JohnM]

I cannot see Sir Lindsay getting involved and I trust that he has been misquoted  in the podcast.

 

[Barley Mow]

22 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I cannot see Sir Lindsay getting involved and I trust that he has been misquoted  in the podcast.

 

It was first referred to in one of the articles linked a few pages back.

From my reading of it there Hoyle was at the test match in Leeds last week and it was mentioned to him, he showed an interest (I'm not sure how serious an interest, it's possible he was just being polite) and a letter was subsequently sent to him outlining the case for Aston.

Is there any indication he intends to actually try to 'do' anything?

[JohnM]

Just what Martyn said in the podcast. 

I don't think one can suggest that the words of the  Speaker can be interpreted in that way, that's all.  Possible minefield?

Edited November 7 by JohnM

[mozzauk]

Davidson has posted another article:

 

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

 

To be honest the Eagles fan base feels more like a cult.. and one I have had to mute on FB as its getting ridiculous, people writing to MP's who most in South Yorkshire dont know what Rugby League is and most are as useless as a chocolate fireguard...

Everyone at the Eagles loves Mark and most have known him a long time, and in my view  the ban should have been for time served, a financial penalty to the Club, and improvements across the board to the HIA process... 

[gingerjon]

The MPs can ask about this and the RFL can say that the tribunal followed agreed processes, the information about the notes is in the public domain, and that they have improved their HIA protocols and medical oversight in particular.

And then the MPs can go off for lunch happy that they have done what some letter writers, and 869 signatories to an online petition, have asked them to do.

Meanwhile ... has the appeal gone in?

[M j M]

What is Davidson's agenda and why is he trumping up this BS? Is it just a means of getting at the RFL for some reason?

I never really had any views on him before but this just seems absurd if not dangerous, bending facts to try and portray Aston as hard done to and the RFL as the real culprits.

[Expatknight]

10 minutes ago, M j M said:

What is Davidson's agenda and why is he trumping up this BS? Is it just a means of getting at the RFL for some reason?

I never really had any views on him before but this just seems absurd if not dangerous, bending facts to try and portray Aston as hard done to and the RFL as the real culprits.

Am I stupid, or missing something here? from the tribunal the facts were that Marsh suffered a HIA, the correct protocols were not followed and he was not cleared to play but the Physio and coach decided otherwise so he played, he cannot have played if he wasn't picked and that is down to the coach. Therefore there is absolutely no excuse. How can any right minded person defend those actions when we are all aware of the serious implications that can and have arisen from head injuries in sport, it isn't like years ago when we were ignorant to it. It totally baffles me!!

[M j M]

4 minutes ago, Expatknight said:

Am I stupid, or missing something here? from the tribunal the facts were that Marsh suffered a HIA, the correct protocols were not followed and he was not cleared to play but the Physio and coach decided otherwise so he played, he cannot have played if he wasn't picked and that is down to the coach. Therefore there is absolutely no excuse. How can any right minded person defend those actions when we are all aware of the serious implications that can and have arisen from head injuries in sport, it isn't like years ago when we were ignorant to it. It totally baffles me!!

You're not alone. I've read the disciplinary findings document twice now to see if I'm missing something but your summary is correct.

I can understand some less-informed Sheffield fans going off because of loyalty to Aston but just don't know what it is wrong with Sadler and Davidson. The whole thing seems very clear-cut to me yet they are parroting complaints about severity and process on the RFL's side when it's clear the real issue is Aston not following the process.

I'm left confused as to whether Sadler/Davidson are just a bit dim or pushing an agenda for other reasons.

[JohnM]

51 minutes ago, M j M said:

You're not alone. I've read the disciplinary findings document twice now to see if I'm missing something but your summary is correct.

I can understand some less-informed Sheffield fans going off because of loyalty to Aston but just don't know what it is wrong with Sadler and Davidson. The whole thing seems very clear-cut to me yet they are parroting complaints about severity and process on the RFL's side when it's clear the real issue is Aston not following the process.

I'm left confused as to whether Sadler/Davidson are just a bit dim or pushing an agenda for other reasons.

pushing an agenda for other reasons

In effect, acting as the opposition to the game's governing body on certain actions, policies etc. informed by various sources not happy at present. There are issues I think, such as Aston, IMG grading and otherwise, Bradford, for example, they are examining. It will also be informative to read/hear/see Garry Schofield's contribution next week. (By the way, is he maybe not too well at present?) From the poadcast,it seems that he was to be preseted to the crowd from the field at last weeks game but wasn't, so another issue to raise.

Edited November 7 by JohnM

[M j M]

2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

It will also be informative to read/hear/see Garry Schofield's contribution next week.

I can't agree on that point, it's rarely informative but especially on off-field matters.

[Impartial Observer]

I am sorry to hear that Garry is not too well but as I have heard he is one of the ex players involved in the lawsuit I would be surprised if he would have been presented to the crowd. I also heard that he has moaned that he has not been invited to the big games anymore and doesn't understand why.

[JohnM]

5 minutes ago, Impartial Observer said:

I am sorry to hear that Garry is not too well but as I have heard he is one of the ex players involved in the lawsuit I would be surprised if he would have been presented to the crowd. I also heard that he has moaned that he has not been invited to the big games anymore and doesn't understand why.

Just remarking that he didn't look too well on a recent podcast. Just my imression: nothing else. He may be fine and indeed I hope so. 

[Cheadle Leyther]

One of the letters in League Express did include an incident in a recent Wigan game when Nsemba was clearly knocked out yet was allowed back on the field later. Why has nothing been done about this?

[JohnM]

41 minutes ago, M j M said:

I can't agree on that point, it's rarely informative but especially on off-field matters.

I should have written "informative" not informative. Or maybe "revealing"  (agenda, motivation, sources) . 

[JohnM]

2 minutes ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

One of the letters in League Express did include an incident in a recent Wigan game when Nsemba was clearly knocked out yet was allowed back on the field later. Why has nothing been done about this?

I think you may have posted that on the wrong thread. This is about Sheffield. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

17 minutes ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

One of the letters in League Express did include an incident in a recent Wigan game when Nsemba was clearly knocked out yet was allowed back on the field later. Why has nothing been done about this?

I believe he passed the 'in game' HIA so a different situation entirely, although it is probably something else that needs to be reviewed - AFAIK the 'other' code's rules would have meant he had to be immediately substituted and not allowed to return.

Edited November 7 by Les Tonks Sidestep

[JohnM]

Again, wrong thread, I think.  This is about Sheffield/Aston I believe.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

9 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Again, wrong thread, I think.  This is about Sheffield/Aston I believe.

My post was pointing out the difference in the 2 situations.

[Cheadle Leyther]

8 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Again, wrong thread, I think.  This is about Sheffield/Aston I believe.

This was a response to this thread in that someone posted about all the letters in League Express expressing support for Mark Aston one of which mentioned the Nsemba incident