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.

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.

Apologies.

Spot on, whatever the current rules are they need a serious overall (BTW I'm saying Buderus decision is right, wrong or indifferent) far too many decisions are overturned.

The original decision needs to be the right one, and made very carefully looking at all the available evidence, the decision should stand unless there is a clear and undeniable breach of the rules made in making this decision.

Far too many decisions are being overturned, which makes the system appear stupid to most fans and gives the impression that the deciplinary panel do not know what they are doing.

The system needs a radical rewrite, this is very clear, I'll leave it at that.

and mine

Spot on.

Overturning a decision because of a new angle is a joke. Equally the Radford appeal last week contained this piece of logic...



Eh, no that's equivalent to...well...being sent off.

IMHO The NRL system would seem a good stating point.

To be fair the scheduling a panel having 2 out of 3 members with strong links to a single club is far from perfect and should be fairly easy to avoid

Firstly, you admit you don't know what the current rules and guidelines are... always a good place to start eh!

Ok, lets make it less democratic then, no right of appeal, in fact bugger this panel idea, lets just have one bloke make every decision... he would always be right and his opinion would be the only that every counted and there would never be a difference of opinion because well... it is just his opinion and he is always right!

Cool idea!

If all these other fans are correct and the RFL really are biased towards us, all I can say is that's a very good thing! They seem to think we will be upset or will wind us up that the governing body supposedly favors us? If they are, keep it going RFL!

This is the only argument so far I have some sympathy with, but I think the idea is that it is constantly rotating panels, from all those available, to avoid the whole issue that everyone seems to be thinking happens week in week out. It just fell on a week when those two were on the same panel. They might not have sat on the panel together at all this season so far and might not again for a while either... but that is sort of the point!

It can't be an easy task for the RFL to fulfil that criteria especially as Piers Morgan spends so much time in the US of A these days.