Not only are you going back 14 years you are making an invalid comparison.

Lee Smith was cited for an offense that could have been up to 4 games. It was a far from clear cut incident.

The disciplinary ruled no ban just a fine. There was no appeal. And certainaly no second appeal on a technicallity.

Not sure that's entirely accurate.

The only account is Rod Studds.... [urlhttps://twitter.com/Rod_Studd/status/1572884139983896577?s=20&t=_bvyUSGoQCkKZ10LIijvKg[/url

The technicality is [i"Now this is where it gets interesting. In the summation the judge apparently said the panel agreed with the MRP verdict but accepted the opponent’s arm stayed in a natural range. Saints saw this a contradiction + contended the appeal verdict should be thrown out."[/i

That is absolutely pathetic, Id be embarrassed to punish that mess, they've had hours to come up with it as well.

I don't blame saints in any of this but the RFL are basically admitting to being incompetent.

Don't think the club should even comment until after the game but after that we should come out really strongly. You only have to read the RFL Twitter feed to understand how poorly this has been handled. Put aside the opinions of Leeds and Saints fans (many who also believed a ban was justified) and the volume of comment from neutrals shows how big a PR disaster this has become for the sport. Going into a world cup which should be the pinnacle of the sport RL looks bereft of leadership and is a laughing stock. Who is actually running the sport. Nobody actually does interviews its just faceless people releasing statements. Let Ralph Rimmer and Paul Cullen come out on sky and answer questions. Many might disagree with their answers or explanations but at the moment I have seen under 11 leagues better organised and run.

Minutes are now available... https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... inutes.pdf Essentially Saints argued that unless the arm is in an "unnatural position" there can't be an "unacceptable risk" of injury. Seems chicken wings are now fair game as long as no injury results...

Minutes are now available... https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... inutes.pdf Essentially Saints argued that unless the arm is in an "unnatural position" there can't be an "unacceptable risk" of injury. Seems chicken wings are now fair game as long as no injury results...

That is nonsensical. The original tribunal believed the player had to move his trunk to avoid injury because of pressure applied by Knowles, but because the player moved his trunk to avoid injury and keep his shoulder within the natural range of motion, Knowles was not reckless in applying the pressure?

This is the equivalent of arguing that a person can drive the wrong way down a road and if people successfully swerve to avoid them, they have not committed an offence.

the paragraph is not even coherently drafted. What an embarrassment.

Quote Omar Little="Omar Little":1osyxvb2Minutes are now available... https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... inutes.pdf Essentially Saints argued that unless the arm is in an "unnatural position" there can't be an "unacceptable risk" of injury. Seems chicken wings are now fair game as long as no injury results...'" Yup, that's about it. So if the opponent had 1% less strength in his shoulder/arm this would have been a terrible "tackle". Good job Knowles went into the tackle knowing the exact strength of his opponent's shoulder. I thought a large part of any foul play tribunal & punishment was INTENT. He was putting undue & excess pressure on a joint at an unnatural angle. He had no idea how effectively the opponent could resist.

Quote Omar Little="Omar Little":1osyxvb2Minutes are now available... https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... inutes.pdf Essentially Saints argued that unless the arm is in an "unnatural position" there can't be an "unacceptable risk" of injury. Seems chicken wings are now fair game as long as no injury results...'" Yup, that's about it. So if the opponent had 1% less strength in his shoulder/arm this would have been a terrible "tackle". Good job Knowles went into the tackle knowing the exact strength of his opponent's shoulder. I thought a large part of any foul play tribunal & punishment was INTENT. He was putting undue & excess pressure on a joint at an unnatural angle. He had no idea how effectively the opponent could resist.

In other news: Handley named in the 21.

Does anyone even care any more? If I hadn't already got tickets I'm not sure I'd bother, the whole thing is now so transparently rigged.

I don't think there's any bias involved for a second.

I just think they're utterly incompetent.

Looking forward to the game now.

Myler
Briscoe Sutcliffe Hardaker Handley
Austin Leeming
Oledzki O’Connor Prior
Bentley Martin
Smith

Dwyer Tetevano Donaldson Thompson

Sinfield, Tindall, Mustapha, Walters drop out