Quote Lprhino="Lprhino"I make this post with my legal hat on, that being what I do on a day to day basis. Important to qualify I do not pretend to know the inner workings of the disciplinary panel before I start. The charge, as far as I can see was dangerous contact and it came with a two match ban. This is what appears on the RFL website Incident:
Dangerous Contact
Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Grade B
Sanctions:
2 match penalty notice
The appeal or basis of the appeal isn’t published, or if it is then it doesn’t appear readily available on the RFL disciplinary site at the time I post.
Now if I take the guess from your post, that the appeal was made on the basis it wasn’t dangerous contact. The charge remains in place I.e dangerous contact, the original sanction remains the same I.e 2 match ban. As such I struggle to see how any argument or basis for an appeal has been successful. A separate panel (as I understand it) have decided that the charge was correct and the sanction was correct. So it was dangerous and warranted a two match ban.
Now let me be clear, I have absolutely no problem with appeals, in fact I think every case should be allowed an appeal without risk of further sanction. In particular in play off rounds and in particular grand final week an appeal without further sanction should be the norm. However, those aren’t the rules at the moment and as such Knowles and his appeal should be considered against the current rules, the current frivolous appeal sanctions in place and what has been going on all year and in particular for other cases in the play offs. For that I consider the appeal (not offence) made by Leeds for Martin and his ban.
Now if you appeal on the basis it isn’t dangerous and the charge remains dangerous contact with the same 2 match ban, that appeal has not been successful in any way, shape or form. It appears completely discretionary as to whether that appeal is frivolous or not. I would say the appeal was clearly frivolous and given the precedents all year and in the play offs further matches are added.
Again to be clear, I would much rather both sides had all players available, injuries and suspensions are rubbish, especially on the big stage. I would also suggest appeals should not carry further bans, especially if that is purely discretionary. The idea of a fair legal or disciplinary system is to make it fair, easy to follow, transparent and with limited discretionary events. The MRP is not doing very well on that criteria.
Any tan from any club would surely be able to see why a Leeds fan would take the view they are being singled out or the system is biased towards them. In a play off they appeal a ban, it’s deemed frivolous and get a further match. Knowles appeals, his charge and sanction remain the same, so any basis of the appeal cannot have been significantly successful, he also has a generally poorish disciplinary records but the appeal seems to be okay with no problem and no further match added. Now if that is because it’s grand final week fair enough, but publish that rule or direction, make it clear and allow all fans from all clubs the ability to understand the rules and procedures in place.
Anyway enough of all that. Grand final week, glad it is saints we are playing, they have been the best team for 4 years. We have a chance as it’s a grand final but either way hope for a good game. Loads of respect for saints as a club, the youth production etc and hope the team who plays best on the night comes away with the trophy.'"
You have missed my point; again I don't know the grounds by which Saints did appeal. The suggestion of my previous post (which I assumed to be clear) was a complete fabrication of a guess. Whether its appropriate or not for the RFL to publish specific details of appeals I wouldn't comment on, but given Leeds have published that they used other examples of incidents in their appeals, it is clear that the MRP deem that to be frivolous, and one can therefore assume it wasn't the basis of Saints appeal. I can also see why the MRP see that approach as frivolous - you cant challenge a conviction for robbing a car with "but lots of other people rob cars".
You might feel like the MRP are biased against Leeds (lord knows enough Saints fans think they're biased against them), but I really don't see how Knowles not being handed and additional game for a frivolous appeal "proves" that or otherwise - as we don't know the grounds by which Saints appealed or how it compares in quality to what Leeds have put forward previously. Personally 2 games for Knowles and 3 games for Bateman is a joke in my eyes as the relative impact and risk both created is in two completely different spectrums, but without knowing what Wigan presented in his defence, what more can be said.
What this sort of leads us to, is hopefully a common agreement that the whole process feels like its been designed to be deliberately misleading and abstracted away from fans. Perhaps in previous seasons where there was less attention on the MRP that was fine, but we have seen the RFLs response to the legal challenges it faces to really use the MRP as a tool to demonstrate its doing ... [isomething[/i to respond to head injury concerns, and pushing it into the spotlight like that has shown massive reform is necessary. Even simple things, like a library of incidents at each grading, with a member of the panel explaining what they're looking for and how it got to the grading it was at, and what the player would have had to do differently to avoid being picked up, would do wonders for helping fans feel more engaged in the process. But I wont hold my breath
