Sheffield

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

5 minutes ago, RayCee said:

And I always found courts cold places, not that I frequent them that often. 

Blooming autocarrot.....

[Gav Wilson]

17 hours ago, mozzauk said:

The hearing was today, but there has been no news as yet on the outcome of it, or if it has been put on hold.. 

 

Unless anyone knows better...

Decision expected within ten days according to Johnny Davidson.

He's also linked Danny Ward and Andrew Henderson to the Head Coach gig.

[Angelic Cynic]

https://www.sheffieldeagles.com/Eagles-News/article/operational-rules-tribunal-update-18th-october-2024/

[Agbrigg]

20 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

The hearing will be being held under essentially the same rules as an English court of law. RFL efficiency, or not, will have no bearing on the time taken for the arguments to be heard or a verdict to be reached.

It dosnt seem that way to me. Courts of Law are public places with a few special exceptions. This lot seems cloak and dagger no one even knows what has been alleged. 

[The Phantom Horseman]

Aston has been given an 18-month suspension.
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/mark-aston-ban-breach-medical-30221227

[LeeF]

20 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Aston has been given an 18-month suspension.
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/mark-aston-ban-breach-medical-30221227

That’s a lengthy punishment for a serious offence

[sentoffagain2]

    How on earth did he think that it would not be noticed? A player who receives a head knock automatically misses the next weeks game or am i misreading the rules.

[LeeF]

7 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

    How on earth did he think that it would not be noticed? A player who receives a head knock automatically misses the next weeks game or am i misreading the rules.

No you aren’t. It’s a minimum 10 or 11 day stand down for a failed HIA

[Tommygilf]

Surely sacked by Sheffield then, gross misconduct.

[Oldham 1]

Agree that a heavy suspension should be given for this , also shouldn't the player in question be given a long ban as well ? He will have known himself the danger he was putting himself in and be well aware of the concussion protocols for me the player is as guilty as anyone here

[JonM]

Just now, Oldham 1 said:

Agree that a heavy suspension should be given for this , also shouldn't the player in question be given a long ban as well 

I don't know whether there is any requirement for players to know those kind of rules? In any case, orders from the Boss - might not want to lose his contract etc.

[gingerjon]

RFL Statement plus link to tribunal verdict: https://www.rugby-league.com/article/63225/operational-rules-tribunal-–-mark-aston,-mick-heys-and-sheffield-eagles-–-decision

[Eddie]

I find it strange that they did this in a cup game against Wigan as well, a game they were never going to win. If it was the championship grand final could sort of understand (but not justify) the decision. 

[Expatknight]

11 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I find it strange that they did this in a cup game against Wigan as well, a game they were never going to win. If it was the championship grand final could sort of understand (but not justify) the decision. 

I find it strange that they even did it all, the protocols are there to protect players and to think it wouldn’t get picked up is either arrogance or naivety in the extreme. I can’t see how Mark Aston can appeal as at the end of the day he is the coach and the buck stops with him, ignorance is no excuse and I am sure the return to play process is detailed to the nth degree so as not to fail foul of litigation in the future. A sad state of affairs

[paulwalker71]

Whilst a quick scan of a ruling suggests the physio, Mick Hey, was mostly responsible, it seems like Aston sought to deflect:

Quote

He (Mark Aston) has continued through these proceedings to challenge everything. He has
sought to blame others, Mr Heys and the RFL, not only for the Gameday system and what
he says are its failings but also for not intervening further on the 22nd when they had been
alerted to the potential problem. Everyone within the game knows full well that the
Gameday system deals with players availability/unavailability due to suspension for
disciplinary matters. It has never been said to deal with players recovering from injury or
from GPTP processes.

It appears that Mark Aston's defence was everyone else was to blame but him when the buck basically stops with him when it comes to team selection and player welfare in these cases.

[The Phantom Horseman]

I've read a copy of the full judgement. The Sheffield doctor deserves plenty of credit for her stance based on this, and it's hard to argue with the verdicts on Aston and Heys based on their lengthy findings, an excerpt of which is reproduced below.

86. However, we are sure that during the conversation on Friday morning Mr Heys made it
clear that MM was not signed off and that MA knew that this meant that MM could not
play. It was this that prompted MH to contact the RFL to find the ‘solution’ that MA referred
to in their conversation that morning.
87. We are also satisfied so that we are sure that MH spoke with MA on the coach that
afternoon having been unsuccessful in getting the RFL to sanction MM’s selection. At this
stage MH knew how serious this was. He was fully aware that MM should not be selected
and that there would be severe consequences if he was selected and played. He told MA
that in terms. We are also satisfied that MA then asked if MM was available and this was
checked by someone on the coach. We believe from that this is likely to have been the RFL
Gameday site. This enquiry having been made we are satisfied that MA decided that this
would be the reason he would use in justifying the selection of MM despite Mr Heys
protestations.
88. To suggest that MH did not speak to him we consider to be palpably untrue. This gives us
the clearest insight into what MA knew. MA knew as of Friday morning he could not select
MM without HC signing him off. His instruction to sort it to MH was an indication of his
determination to select him. It is utterly inconceivable that he never spoke again to MH as
he suggests. Had it been the case that he had not sought reassurances later that day that
MM was signed off to play, that would also in our view amount to a breach of the player
welfare code. It could never be acceptable to select a player that had suffered a significant
concussion 2 weeks earlier, not knowing if he was eligible to play as he had not been
properly assessed by a doctor.
89. We are satisfied MA knew full well that MM was not cleared to play. He wanted him to play
and therefore deliberately ignored what he was being told and decided that they would
‘deal with the consequences later’ as was reported to HC by Mr Heys the following day.

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/Sheffield Eagles and Mark Aston and Mick Heys ORT.pdf

 

[Joe Aitcheson]

1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Aston has been given an 18-month suspension.
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/mark-aston-ban-breach-medical-30221227

As we can only assume that this is indeed true, then it should be a life ban, not an 18 month one. Doesn’t surprise me though.

[Expatknight]

3 minutes ago, Joe Aitcheson said:

As we can only assume that this is indeed true, then it should be a life ban, not an 18 month one. Doesn’t surprise me though.

i f what has been quoted in the judgement is true, and there is no reason to believe otherwise, I would suggest Mark Astons career as a coach is over, given that, who in their right mind would employ him in that role now?  

[JonM]

4 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

I've read a copy of the full judgement. The Sheffield doctor deserves plenty of credit for her stance based on this, and it's hard to argue with the verdicts on Aston and Heys based on their lengthy findings, an excerpt of which is reproduced below.

Some troubling stuff in the full judgment, including that Matty Marsh continued to fail tests some days after the Wigan game and that none of the Sheffield staff made the match doctors at Wigan aware that there was an issue.

Some really poor attempts at defending their conduct too, trying to argue that they hadn't been properly served notice because the RFL investigator hadn't read them a caution first, that information had been emailed to the club rather than given in person or sent by post to Mark Aston himself and that the RFL investigator's deletion of WhatsApp messages was an attempted cover-up. Also argued that the RFL should've stepped in and stopped Marsh from playing on the day. 

[tim2]

16 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

I've read a copy of the full judgement. The Sheffield doctor deserves plenty of credit for her stance based on this, and it's hard to argue with the verdicts on Aston and Heys based on their lengthy findings, an excerpt of which is reproduced below.

86. However, we are sure that during the conversation on Friday morning Mr Heys made it
clear that MM was not signed off and that MA knew that this meant that MM could not
play. It was this that prompted MH to contact the RFL to find the ‘solution’ that MA referred
to in their conversation that morning.
87. We are also satisfied so that we are sure that MH spoke with MA on the coach that
afternoon having been unsuccessful in getting the RFL to sanction MM’s selection. At this
stage MH knew how serious this was. He was fully aware that MM should not be selected
and that there would be severe consequences if he was selected and played. He told MA
that in terms. We are also satisfied that MA then asked if MM was available and this was
checked by someone on the coach. We believe from that this is likely to have been the RFL
Gameday site. This enquiry having been made we are satisfied that MA decided that this
would be the reason he would use in justifying the selection of MM despite Mr Heys
protestations.
88. To suggest that MH did not speak to him we consider to be palpably untrue. This gives us
the clearest insight into what MA knew. MA knew as of Friday morning he could not select
MM without HC signing him off. His instruction to sort it to MH was an indication of his
determination to select him. It is utterly inconceivable that he never spoke again to MH as
he suggests. Had it been the case that he had not sought reassurances later that day that
MM was signed off to play, that would also in our view amount to a breach of the player
welfare code. It could never be acceptable to select a player that had suffered a significant
concussion 2 weeks earlier, not knowing if he was eligible to play as he had not been
properly assessed by a doctor.
89. We are satisfied MA knew full well that MM was not cleared to play. He wanted him to play
and therefore deliberately ignored what he was being told and decided that they would
‘deal with the consequences later’ as was reported to HC by Mr Heys the following day.

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/Sheffield Eagles and Mark Aston and Mick Heys ORT.pdf

 

The doctor probably didn't fancy being struck off if Matty had collapsed during the match.

[The Phantom Horseman]

9 minutes ago, tim2 said:

The doctor probably didn't fancy being struck off if Matty had collapsed during the match.

Fair point, but it does make you wonder as to how much pressure they might be put under.

[JonM]

 

1 hour ago, Oldham 1 said:

Agree that a heavy suspension should be given for this , also shouldn't the player in question be given a long ban as well ? He will have known himself the danger he was putting himself in and be well aware of the concussion protocols for me the player is as guilty as anyone here

Part of the judgment says: "the player himself was not appraised of the situation and afforded the opportunity to decline to play, putting the player at risk." 

[JonM]

Just now, The Phantom Horseman said:

Fair point, but it does make you wonder as to how much pressure they might be put under.

This is one of the things used in the summing-up against Mick Heys - the fact that he continued to attempt to pressure the doctor even after the Wigan match.

[The Phantom Horseman]

2 minutes ago, JonM said:

 

Part of the judgment says: "the player himself was not appraised of the situation and afforded the opportunity to decline to play, putting the player at risk." 

In any case, the rules are there partly to protect the players from themselves. Pro & semi-pro RL players are amongst the toughest sportsmen around and we have all seen instances where a player has tried to insist on staying on the field when clearly concussed or otherwise injured. They always want to play, mainly because they're so competitive but also nobody wants to risk losing their place by missing a game.

[OriginalMrC]

This is one of the most idiotic things I have ever seen in RL (and it's a low bar). Why would someone destroy their career and reputation over something as basic as this. I really don't get it 

Edited October 24 by OriginalMrC