Spot on, why on earth didn't they look at all the angles on the first hearing, then they could have come up with the right decision in the first place.

Just makes them look really really stupid.

This is already been covered under the conspiracy theory thread but...

The disciplinary panel is always different from the appeals panel. The panels are done on a rota system some way in advance of the meetings to ensure that people are available.

It did so happen that two (of the three) people who had strong Wigan connections were on the disciplinary panel, this is not RFL bias or conspiracy but just simply how it worked out on the rota!

This is why they have an appeals system and it is also always three different people who look at the incident afresh. The three people on the appeals panel did not agree with the original decision of the disciplinary panel and they overturned the ban... simple!

Because they are three different people and they have reached a different decision... that is the point of the appeals system. They don't look stupid, the disciplinary panel thought one thing and the appeals panel thought another thing... they are just opinions.

But who's to say the appeals committee's opinion is any more correct/valid/accurate than that of the disciplinary committee's. All the chopping and changing does make a bit of a mockery of the system - not just in this case but in every case that this happens.

The process needs to be made more objective than subjective. Whether or not a ban is appropriate should be a black and white case - not down to an opinion of a group. There should be better guidelines drawn up regarding how bans are handed out and they should be stuck to.

They look stupid, one decision one day and the opposite the next, it happens alot of the time and it needs changing.

We need to be getting the right decision first time, it just becomes farcical.

BTW reason given on here is that they saw a different angle second time round.

[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/leeds/9001497.stm[/url

I sometimes wonder if the RFL do this on purpose to get more media coverage? Or could it be they are just a bunch of clueless tarts who are out of touch with the modern game, reality and life in general.

Another example of RFL favouritism towards the Whinos

Hang on a minute... so your alternative is always to have the same people on the panel and no right of appeal??? There are guidelines (very good ones) but like the whole of the UK justices system it is down to a jury of piers to decide... in this case 3 people on the disciplinary panel, three on the appeals panel. They draw up rota's in advance which rotate all the members around both panels, so that one person can never dominate or they can form cliques with each other, meaning varied and balanced opinions and judgements!

He is still guilty, they (the appeals panel) just think he does not deserve a one match suspension for gods sake.

If this system is not fair what is your alternative?

Get a grip everyone, one panel had a slightly different view from the other and Leeds asked them to look at specific angle that the disciplinary may not have seen, but Leeds showed as it supported the argument for not suspending him... that means the system worked...

Get a grip!

Just because they won't pay you tax bill.

If you'd bother to through the stats, you'll find many a ban this year has been over turned. Unfortunately for you, a certain 2 year drug ban wasn't. Sorry - not our fault!

Correct, just suprised it took you so long to come up with that, you must be on your own tonight. Oh and sorry EOTB.

Please dont quote bumsniff. It's on my ignore list for a reason.

My main point is that the whole process seems a joke when appeals get given the thumbs up so often. It makes the bans given out by the disciplinary committee seem a bit.. well... pointless. It also, in my view, assumes that the appeals committee's opinion is more valid than that of the original disciplinary committee.