Sheffield

[RP London]

On 11/11/2024 at 10:50, The Blues Ox said:

League Express on one hand running the Gary Schofield story and on the other hand running a story that seems happy that a coach played a player who was not passed fit from a head injury. Slight double standards.

Pretty much sums up the idiocy of this entire thing

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

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.

It might seem unnecessary to you but it's not for you to decide.  

I dunno - what's your problem with it?

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

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. 

Neither party has an obligation to release anything publicly at this stage.

Why do you feel this sense of entitlement to be informed?

[RP London]

23 hours 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? 

going by the headcase protocol stuff, if you are still having headaches you cannot pass through the stages, therefore you are not fit to play/train depending on which stage you are on. 

[JonM]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

going by the headcase protocol stuff, if you are still having headaches you cannot pass through the stages, therefore you are not fit to play/train depending on which stage you are on. 

The tribunal evidence included Mick Heys telling the doctor that Matty Marsh no longer had any symptoms and had passed the various assessments that he had done. (The headaches were day 2-3 into the HIA period, the training was around day 8-9. The problem was that the doctor hadn't seen him and/or signed him off to do full contact training, not that he was still having headaches.)

[RP London]

1 minute ago, JonM said:

The tribunal evidence included Mick Heys telling the doctor that Matty Marsh no longer had any symptoms and had passed the various assessments that he had done. (The headaches were day 2-3 into the HIA period, the training was around day 8-9. The problem was that the doctor hadn't seen him and/or signed him off to do full contact training, not that he was still having headaches.)

No I get that. RU for example stop you moving through the stage if you have had any symptoms within the stage (not confined to Headaches).. so sometimes there are other things. Got to wonder, with failing one later, if he should have even been training at day 8 or 9. As you say this is all playing around a little as the key is that the doctor had not signed him off therefore he should not have been playing. 

[Tommygilf]

18 minutes ago, Griff said:

It might seem unnecessary to you but it's not for you to decide.  

I dunno - what's your problem with it?

Given this whole situation essentially boils down to disregarding RFL operational rules when it suits, disregarding RFL rules because it suits seems really stupid.

[Tommygilf]

17 minutes ago, Griff said:

Neither party has an obligation to release anything publicly at this stage.

Why do you feel this sense of entitlement to be informed?

No entitlement at all. 

I would reasonably expect Aston to lay out his defences publicly now, given it is entirely in his interests to do so, and indeed has already been done by him. Given he's not shouting from the rooftops about it, I think it's more than reasonable to expect that nothing new is going to come from his side.

[hawk-eye]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

No entitlement at all. 

I would reasonably expect Aston to lay out his defences publicly now, given it is entirely in his interests to do so, and indeed has already been done by him. Given he's not shouting from the rooftops about it, I think it's more than reasonable to expect that nothing new is going to come from his side.

I'm love to play poker with you is you believe showing your hand before you have to is a good idea! 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, hawk-eye said:

I'm love to play poker with you is you believe showing your hand before you have to is a good idea! 

I'd love to play it with you! You'd still be sat with an ace up your sleeve a month later wondering why everyone else won!

[Angelic Cynic]

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'd love to play it with you! You'd still be sat with an ace up your sleeve a month later wondering why everyone else won!

I don't think it is a case of winning or losing - though this matter with 'legal privilege ' and  data protection issues has become adversarial instead of seeking the truth.

I don't think any of the players named in the ongoing court case from both codes,and soccer,have been coached by Mark Aston,and there is also the selfless actions by the Sheffield Eagles club about ' creating achievable procedures' for part time clubs to 'bridge the gap between full and part time clubs.'

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/championship-clubs-fans-call-for-major-rfl-reform-and-launch-petition-against-mark-astons-ban

I didn't know so many second rate journalists were employed:yet here we have negative rugby league news being picked up and carried by The Times!

If those Halifax followers who supported Sam Barlow wanted their pound of flesh against a man of principle they can sure gorge - for now.

It doesn't look like the easy target is taking it lying down - despite the huge amount of negative publicity against him.

[RP London]

54 minutes ago, Griff said:

Neither party has an obligation to release anything publicly at this stage.

Why do you feel this sense of entitlement to be informed?

TBF everyone is asking questions that no one has an obligation to release including yourself. If one person asking has a sense of entitlement so does everyone else asking.. 

[JonM]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

Got to wonder, with failing one later, if he should have even been training at day 8 or 9. 

According to the protocol, he wasn't supposed to, no. The tribunal case is not just that he played in a match when he wasn't supposed to, it's also that he took part in full contact training when he wasn't supposed to and that Mick Heys then changed his version of events about when and where that training took place. OTOH, I think it has to be assumed that the failing one later came about through a new and separate incident in the Wigan game.

[M j M]

58 minutes ago, JonM said:

According to the protocol, he wasn't supposed to, no. The tribunal case is not just that he played in a match when he wasn't supposed to, it's also that he took part in full contact training when he wasn't supposed to and that Mick Heys then changed his version of events about when and where that training took place. OTOH, I think it has to be assumed that the failing one later came about through a new and separate incident in the Wigan game.

Given he had symptoms after the first game does that change the timing of when the player can be available to play again vs the minimum 12 or 13 days?

[Griff]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Given this whole situation essentially boils down to disregarding RFL operational rules when it suits, disregarding RFL rules because it suits seems really stupid.

It's about saving time and money for both sides.

Though, obviously, it suits the RFL to delay as much as possible.

[Impartial Observer]

17 minutes ago, Griff said:

It's about saving time and money for both sides.

Though, obviously, it suits the RFL to delay as much as possible.

I guess if the RFL win they will ask for costs.

Why does it suit RFL to delay?

[RP London]

1 hour ago, JonM said:

According to the protocol, he wasn't supposed to, no. The tribunal case is not just that he played in a match when he wasn't supposed to, it's also that he took part in full contact training when he wasn't supposed to and that Mick Heys then changed his version of events about when and where that training took place. OTOH, I think it has to be assumed that the failing one later came about through a new and separate incident in the Wigan game.

Thanks for that.. the potential with the last part is that it is now well known that to get another concussion when already suffering a concussion raises the odds of very serious issue greatly... Which is worrying

"there is some evidence from both animal studies and research involving humans that the brain is at increased risk while recovering from a concussion. Thus, a repeat injury while recovering from a prior concussion may occur with less force, take longer to resolve, and in rare cases lead to catastrophic results" taken from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK185336/

[RP London]

47 minutes ago, M j M said:

Given he had symptoms after the first game does that change the timing of when the player can be available to play again vs the minimum 12 or 13 days?

It should, yes.

[Tommygilf]

51 minutes ago, Griff said:

It's about saving time and money for both sides.

Though, obviously, it suits the RFL to delay as much as possible.

Why on earth does it suit the RFL to delay? Is it not them that have allowed an extension to the appeal window for Aston?

[mozzauk]

On 11/11/2024 at 17:48, M j M said:

Can I say It's just a cult at Sheffield, isn't it?

As an Eagles fan since the 90's it feels like a cult at times, and not just on this but if you dare question things about the club or some of the players, or if you dont go to away games, the list goes on...

I am bored of it all now, and just want it to be over and done with so we can get on with the 2025 season, and I hope Mark is back in charge soon..

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Impartial Observer said:

I guess if the RFL win they will ask for costs.

Why does it suit RFL to delay?

 

31 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Why on earth does it suit the RFL to delay? Is it not them that have allowed an extension to the appeal window for Aston?

Really? I can't believe you asked that.

Even if successful in his appeal, he'll definitely be suspended until the hearing.

[M j M]

52 minutes ago, RP London said:

1 hour ago, M j M said:

Given he had symptoms after the first game does that change the timing of when the player can be available to play again vs the minimum 12 or 13 days?

It should, yes.

So all this stuff about him being fit to play and it just being an admin thing is utterly wrong?

[JohnM]

Just watched the latest LE podcast and at the end, Martyn mentions Garry and if I heard him correctly, he say, "Garry....brain damage, which you'd have to conclude occured during his playing career."

IF that is the case, then it makes the Sheffield Eagles affair much more than an administrative oversight. 

That's 1 hour , 1 min into the podcast.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

 

Really? I can't believe you asked that.

Even if successful in his appeal, he'll definitely be suspended until the hearing.

And again, why does it suit the RFL to delay?

[Impartial Observer]

16 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

And again, why does it suit the RFL to delay?

I was just going to ask again