Sheffield

[Expatknight]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

It's just a witch hunt, isn't it?

what a puerile comment, I am really lost for words. The facts are there in black and white, I am afraid it is your problem if you don’t agree with them but they are still the facts like it or not.

[Expatknight]

27 minutes ago, Griff said:

I'd be grateful if you would edit your post so that your words are not attributed to me.

Happy now?

[hawk-eye]

I really never thought I would type this, but, checkout The Times tomorrow for an impartial view of the saga from an experienced journalist.

[Hopie]

2 hours ago, hawk-eye said:

I really never thought I would type this, but, checkout The Times tomorrow for an impartial view of the saga from an experienced journalist.

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/rugby-league/article/mark-aston-matty-marsh-head-injury-sheffield-eagles-suspension-r3mrvkcn7

Pay walled for me, but is it this one?

[JonM]

Seems reasonably balanced. Quotes from Matty Marsh saying he was fit to play, had passed tests, Aston shouldn't be punished for what was just an administrative error.  Quotes an RFL statement: “To describe it as ‘an administrative error’ reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the reasons the charges were brought, and why the suspension was imposed — knowingly fielding a player without the necessary medical clearance is considerably more serious than that.” Aston & supporters believe that he is being made an example of because the sport is worried about its future due to the impact of head injuries. 

There is some new (to me, anyway) information too. It says that the RFL lawyer responded to Aston's appeal by saying: “The RFL will not be agreeing to this matter proceeding to Sport Resolutions.” Also says that the tribunal accepts that Marsh would not have been picked by Aston if he had shown any symptoms, which was the case with another Eagles player, Joel Farrell, in the same week. The tribunal said, however, that it was “troubling” that Marsh failed another HIA test five days after the Wigan game.

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, JonM said:

There is some new (to me, anyway) information too. It says that the RFL lawyer responded to Aston's appeal by saying: “The RFL will not be agreeing to this matter proceeding to Sport Resolutions.” 

It's in the Operational Rules that they can do that. What I'm not clear on (cue @Griff) is whether there needs to be a formal appeal ahead of the involvement of Sporting Resolutions so the RFL are following protocol and Aston is trying to circumvent the process, or if it is the appeal itself which goes to Sporting Resolution and the RFL are blocking (*), in which case, why extend the deadline?

Either way: not a witchhunt, offence is serious, punishment on evidence presented remains at the lenient end.

[Impartial Observer]

In a way he has been made an example of because this is the first case so this is now the benchmark, some people are saying he should just get a warning, that would then give a green light to others to do the same and get a warning.

All this isnt helped probably by the head of the legal department currently not at work 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2024 by Impartial Observer

[Griff]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

It's in the Operational Rules that they can do that. What I'm not clear on (cue @Griff) is whether there needs to be a formal appeal ahead of the involvement of Sporting Resolutions so the RFL are following protocol and Aston is trying to circumvent the process, or if it is the appeal itself which goes to Sporting Resolution and the RFL are blocking (*), in which case, why extend the deadline?

I don't know.  If the RFL stand their ground, an appeal to Sporting Resolutions is inevitable so the sensible thing would be to leapfrog the internal appeal.   The deadline was probably extended because the move to have the matter heard before Sporting Resolutions was being considered.   The obvious question is what are the RFL scared of?

Edited November 12, 2024 by Griff

[M j M]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

I don't know.  If the RFL stand their ground, an appeal to Sporting Resolutions is inevitable so the sensible thing would be to leapfrog the internal appeal.   The deadline was probably extended because the move to have the matter heard before Sporting Resolutions was being considered.   The obvious question is what are the RFL scared of?

RFL following process = RFL scared.

There's some real  mindbending being peddled here.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

I don't know.  If the RFL stand their ground, an appeal to Sporting Resolutions is inevitable so the sensible thing would be to leapfrog the internal appeal.   The deadline was probably extended because the move to have the matter heard before Sporting Resolutions was being considered.   The obvious question is what are the RFL scared of?

That's like saying I won't bother with an appeal in an English court let's go straight to the ECJ...

[Griff]

Just now, M j M said:

RFL following process = RFL scared.

There's some real  mindbending being peddled here.

Following the process, already knowing the outcome = money wasted by both sides.

[Griff]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

That's like saying I won't bother with an appeal in an English court let's go straight to the ECJ...

It's like saying, never mind with the Court of Appeal, let's go straight to the Supreme Court.

Which happens in real life.  For exactly the reason I outlined.

[Tommygilf]

14 minutes ago, Griff said:

Following the process, already knowing the outcome = money wasted by both sides.

 

12 minutes ago, Griff said:

It's like saying, never mind with the Court of Appeal, let's go straight to the Supreme Court.

Which happens in real life.  For exactly the reason I outlined.

That suggests there is no new grounds for the appeal then. 

[Griff]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

That suggests there is no new grounds for the appeal then. 

We'll have to wait and see, won't we?

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, Griff said:

It's like saying, never mind with the Court of Appeal, let's go straight to the Supreme Court.

Which happens in real life.  For exactly the reason I outlined.

No no why bother with the Supreme Court they're just part of the same system go bigger instead.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Griff said:

We'll have to wait and see, won't we?

Shockingly naive position to take.

[Griff]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

No no why bother with the Supreme Court they're just part of the same system go bigger instead.

Don't be childish, Tommy.  It doesn't suit you.

Leapfrogging the Court of Appeal is an accepted process.  It saves court time and litigant money.

[Griff]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Shockingly naive position to take.

I'd say patient.

What did you want me to say ?   Make something up to keep you happy ?

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

Don't be childish, Tommy.  It doesn't suit you.

Leapfrogging the Court of Appeal is an accepted process.  It saves court time and litigant money.

That seems very rich given your responses on this thread.

It may be, but given the RFL's accepted court of appeal is the very same institution that Mr Aston is wishing to appeal to, the amphibious-hurdling seems unnecessary.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

I'd say patient.

What did you want me to say ?   Make something up to keep you happy ?

Nothing in what has been said since the verdict has even hinted at there being anything new to add. 

The appeal's sole basis appears to be that the RFL process (not the facts of the case however) wasn't fair, and then further that the judgement was too harsh. 

[The Blues Ox]

Wow, I didn't know that Marsh failed a HIA the following week as well. It totally could be a coincidence but all the evidence just keeps getting worse and worse for Aston. 

[JohnM]

I hope this helps.

Infallible AI says."Yes, you can appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court or a Divisional Court in certain cases, bypassing the Court of Appeal. This is called a "leapfrog" appeal. 
 
A leapfrog appeal is only permitted in exceptional circumstances, and requires the following:
All parties must consent
The case must raise a point of law of public importance
The trial judge must certify that the case is important
The Supreme Court must give permission to appeal 
 
Some factors that may make a leapfrog appeal appropriate include: Cost, Speed, The effect on other cases, and Whether the issues will still be relevant. 
 
In general, to appeal to the Supreme Court, you must first apply to the court that heard the original case for permission to appeal. If that application is refused, you can then apply to the Supreme Court. 
 

The Supreme Court says, "

A guide to bringing a case to The Supreme Court

These appeals are generally called leapfrog appeals. 1.12. 1 A certificate of the High Court must first be obtained and then the permission of The Supreme Court must be applied for and given before the appeal may proceed. No application may be made to The Supreme Court without the certificate of the High Court.

https://www.supremecourt.uk › ...PDF

 

Edited November 12, 2024 by JohnM

[JonM]

10 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Wow, I didn't know that Marsh failed a HIA the following week as well. It totally could be a coincidence but all the evidence just keeps getting worse and worse for Aston. 

Probably it's unrelated (and unfortunate) but if the information in the Times article is correct, you could imagine an ambulance-chasing lawyer in a decade's time putting together a timeline that looks like this and painting the whole thing in a very negative light.

- Plays a game and sustains a head injury which leaves him with blurred vision and headaches

- Takes time off work some days later due to headaches

- Misses the next game due to RFL HIA protocol

- Returns to full contact training without having been seen by the club doctor, not allowed by the agreed protocol. Eagles official then changes his story about when and where this happened.

- Qualified medical person says that he can't do full contact training or play in a match until she has assessed him.

- Eagles play him in a match.

- He subsequently fails another head injury assessment.

No surprise the RFL are unhappy.

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, JonM said:

Probably it's unrelated (and unfortunate) but if the information in the Times article is correct, you could imagine an ambulance-chasing lawyer in a decade's time putting together a timeline that looks like this and painting the whole thing in a very negative light.

- Plays a game and sustains a head injury which leaves him with blurred vision and headaches

- Takes time off work some days later due to headaches

- Misses the next game due to RFL HIA protocol

- Returns to full contact training without having been seen by the club doctor, not allowed by the agreed protocol. Eagles official then changes his story about when and where this happened.

- Qualified medical person says that he can't do full contact training or play in a match until she has assessed him.

- Eagles play him in a match.

- He subsequently fails another head injury assessment.

No surprise the RFL are unhappy.

That is the massive thing hanging over all this.

[M j M]

17 minutes ago, JonM said:

Probably it's unrelated (and unfortunate) but if the information in the Times article is correct, you could imagine an ambulance-chasing lawyer in a decade's time putting together a timeline that looks like this and painting the whole thing in a very negative light.

- Plays a game and sustains a head injury which leaves him with blurred vision and headaches

- Takes time off work some days later due to headaches

- Misses the next game due to RFL HIA protocol

- Returns to full contact training without having been seen by the club doctor, not allowed by the agreed protocol. Eagles official then changes his story about when and where this happened.

- Qualified medical person says that he can't do full contact training or play in a match until she has assessed him.

- Eagles play him in a match.

- He subsequently fails another head injury assessment.

No surprise the RFL are unhappy.

But it's all a conspiracy to take a good bloke down!