Sheffield

[hawk-eye]

If they have enough confidence to ban someone for 18 months with the current app why would they need a new one!!

[JonM]

 

1 hour ago, Griff said:

It's an unusual scenario.   Given the urgency, the RFL employee could have stopped it - it would have been a simple matter to call the match commissioner and tell her that Marshy wasn't cleared to play. We'll never know why that wasn't done - the employee no longer works for the RFL and the investigator's notes have been "lost".

Can only assume the people complaining about this and starting petitions etc. have not read the tribunal findings.

Point 18 of the tribunal findings - Heys went over the doctor's head, contacted the RFL Medical and Welfare Manager. Point 77 details that Heys spoke to the RFL at Mark Aston's request. The Medical Manager told Heys that Marsh was not allowed to play.  There's no reason why the RFL would think that Sheffield would disobey a direct instruction like that? Heys then (point 20) texts the doctor saying “Head Coach MA had made the decision to play Mr Marsh in the Wigan fixture[ [...] and that they would 'deal with the consequences later'”. 

[JonM]

3 minutes ago, hawk-eye said:

If they have enough confidence to ban someone for 18 months with the current app why would they need a new one!!

This is to help doctors keep track of things, isn't it? It's not going to make much difference to whether a physio tells the truth to the doctor or whether the coach ignores what the doctor and RFL medical officer says?

[Griff]

31 minutes ago, Dave W said:

It wasn't just Johnston that got punished either: The RFL docked all Barrow's points for the 2011 season thereby relegating us and having to start from scratch with a new BOD. It's taken us a decade to recover.

Sheffield supporters should count themselves lucky that individuals have been punished rather than the club itself.

See para 117 of the judgement.

[Ainley Top]

38 minutes ago, Dave W said:

It wasn't just Johnston that got punished either: The RFL docked all Barrow's points for the 2011 season thereby relegating us and having to start from scratch with a new BOD. It's taken us a decade to recover.

Sheffield supporters should count themselves lucky that individuals have been punished rather than the club itself.

Fax were never recompensed though, were they? 

Edited October 30, 2024 by Ainley Top

[Simon Hall]

If the appeal fails, which it probably will, they should also ban Sheffield from the Challenge Cup next season for fielding an ineligible player in last season's competition.

 

[Dave W]

10 minutes ago, Griff said:

See para 117 of the judgement.

Wait and see then. More grief, possibly.

[Dave W]

5 minutes ago, Ainley Top said:

Fax were never recompensed though, were they? 

Not relevant to anything I said. You can keep your strawman.

[The Blues Ox]

47 minutes ago, Simon Hall said:

If the appeal fails, which it probably will, they should also ban Sheffield from the Challenge Cup next season for fielding an ineligible player in last season's competition.

 

He was not ineligable to play in the game on anything other than medical grounds though. I do agree that the club should get a punishment of some sort for playing a player that was not medically cleared to play. 

[Phil]

21 hours ago, Rene_Artois said:

I really question their take on this. I'll freely admit I've disliked Aston for the last 30 years. Regardless, the punishment seems lenient. The funding page for him seems in particularly poor taste 

He’s an easy person to dislike, snakelike in his sliminess 

See what I did there Oxy? 

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

He’s an easy person to dislike, snakelike in his sliminess 

See what I did there Oxy? 

Snakes aren't slimy.

[Phil]

28 minutes ago, Griff said:

Snakes aren't slimy.

Yes, yes, I know *sighs 

[The Blues Ox]

Griff is right, they are not slimy. They are more slithery and sneaky.

See what I did there Phil? 

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Griff is right, they are not slimy. They are more slithery and sneaky.

See what I did there Phil? 

Excellent  

[LeeF]

3 hours ago, JonM said:

 

Can only assume the people complaining about this and starting petitions etc. have not read the tribunal findings.

Point 18 of the tribunal findings - Heys went over the doctor's head, contacted the RFL Medical and Welfare Manager. Point 77 details that Heys spoke to the RFL at Mark Aston's request. The Medical Manager told Heys that Marsh was not allowed to play.  There's no reason why the RFL would think that Sheffield would disobey a direct instruction like that? Heys then (point 20) texts the doctor saying “Head Coach MA had made the decision to play Mr Marsh in the Wigan fixture[ [...] and that they would 'deal with the consequences later'”. 

Also the Match Commissioner cannot prevent a player from being selected.

They could advise the coach concerned that a player wasn’t eligible but the coach could still go ahead and select them especially if he has the attitude of I’ll deal with the consequences later

[Tommygilf]

Just now, LeeF said:

Also the Match Commissioner cannot prevent a player from being selected.

They could advise the coach concerned that a player wasn’t eligible but the coach could still go ahead and select them especially if he has the attitude of I’ll deal with the consequences later

Which, shock horror, appears to be the case here.

[LeeF]

7 hours ago, Hopie said:

The things they mentioned in the podcast - and my opinion on those things:

Admit the rules were broken - can't see any other logical opinion on this

Punishment too harsh as it ruins someone's career - someone playing with a head injury can lead to them ruining or shortening their life so the punishment seems at the right level to me.

Player had waited the normal length of time to not play for the protocol but the doctor said they were still not cleared - this seems to be an aggravating factor for me, as if the doctor wanted a longer time of rest than normal this points to the injury being more severe than average, so to pick the player in this case seems to be very dangerous.

Miscommunications? Physio said yes at first but then changed to a no later on if player was fit to play. Also, physio can have delegated responsibility in some cases - not sure how a mistake in saying fit to play overrules a later statement saying he player is not fit to play? Obviously a doctor overrules a physio in this situation.

Doctor emailed RFL before the game so the RFL should have stopped this - if the RFL saw the email before the game then there may be an issue that they didn't step in and safeguard a player's safety, but it would still mean the person who decided to ignore doctor's advice would have to be punished if the only thing that stopped the player playing was an external force, and not the club who have a duty of care for their players.

Player was man of the match in the game - Are they saying that if someone plays well they are not injured? Bizarre take if so.

Tribunal is not independent as it is appointed by the RFL and the RFL didn't present the email chain that followed the doctor's email as requested by the tribunal - First point doesn't stand up as its always the case and the appointees are independent, however there is an element of a question about transparency and competence from the RFL side on the latter, however this would be a small mitigation to the punishment at best.

Crowdfunder is for an appeal to an external sports body - seems reasonable if they have a good reason to do so, not sure what it is?

The tribunal was headed by an Independent High Court Judge which adds support to your penultimate paragraph. 

[LeeF]

10 hours ago, JonM said:

The Johnston case was deliberate cheating over a period of 4-5 years (and various players have revealed more things since that weren't known at the time).

Local stationers were allegedly disappointed at the verdict. 

[JonM]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

Local stationers were allegedly disappointed at the verdict. 

Local bookies probably more disappointed though.

[Griff]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

The tribunal was headed by an Independent High Court Judge which adds support to your penultimate paragraph. 

Well, the question of whether he can be independent, having been picked by one side without consulting the other brings us back to square one.

Edited October 30, 2024 by Griff

[RP London]

5 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

He was not ineligable to play in the game on anything other than medical grounds though. I do agree that the club should get a punishment of some sort for playing a player that was not medically cleared to play. 

As an eagles fan I agree.. the player comes first. If he had come out and said, I'd love MM to play but you know, he hasn't recovered from a head knock 2 weeks ago then IMHO every single fan that is now up in arms would have been "yep fine", it's only Wigan hope he's ok for xyz.. 

 

There is a petition going around basically saying "no harm done" it's a joke.. with everything we understand at the moment, with all the court cases, how on earth can people say "no harm done" with a straight face .. how the hell do we know!!!

[Tommygilf]

6 hours ago, RP London said:

As an eagles fan I agree.. the player comes first. If he had come out and said, I'd love MM to play but you know, he hasn't recovered from a head knock 2 weeks ago then IMHO every single fan that is now up in arms would have been "yep fine", it's only Wigan hope he's ok for xyz.. 

 

There is a petition going around basically saying "no harm done" it's a joke.. with everything we understand at the moment, with all the court cases, how on earth can people say "no harm done" with a straight face .. how the hell do we know!!!

Court cases that mean the sport only had one firm willing to provide an insurance quote, at quadruple the previous price.

How stupid.

[The Blues Ox]

8 hours ago, RP London said:

As an eagles fan I agree.. the player comes first. If he had come out and said, I'd love MM to play but you know, he hasn't recovered from a head knock 2 weeks ago then IMHO every single fan that is now up in arms would have been "yep fine", it's only Wigan hope he's ok for xyz.. 

 

There is a petition going around basically saying "no harm done" it's a joke.. with everything we understand at the moment, with all the court cases, how on earth can people say "no harm done" with a straight face .. how the hell do we know!!!

Yeah I have seen the post by Aston's daughter which has been shared to various rugby groups and lots of junior coaches have signed it without knowing the full facts. I think if they were presented with the full details of the case they would be a little more reluctant.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

12 hours ago, Griff said:

Well, the question of whether he can be independent, having been picked by one side without consulting the other brings us back to square one.

That's some acqusation......

[Barley Mow]

10 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

That's some acqusation......

The RFL aren't a 'side' in this either. It isn't Sheffield/MA 'against' the RFL.

The RFL are the governing body carrying out an investigation.

When a player faces disciplinary action it isn't him 'against' the RFL, they are just deciding if there was wrong doing - this is the same situation.