Total idiocy. Happened twice now in the same season. The whole club seems incapable of learning from their mistakes.

We have but it's a while ago.

Surprised we did appeal even if he didn't swear at the ref he was still aggressive towards to him.I still think one game would have been about right but there was always a chance it would have been increased on appeal.So history shows would have been best to leave it.

So we have taken advice from an ex ref and other ex senior players and decided to appeal clearly thinking we had a good case.
And surprise surprise it`s increased.
Who presented our case Tetavano!?
No way was that a 3 game ban.
How many games has the ref got for total incompetence?

Bodene Thompson - 2 match ban - return v Toulouse Olympique 16/07
Harry Newman - 3 match ban - return v Wigan Warriors 21/07
Muizz Mustapha - 5 match ban - return v Wigan Warriors 21/07
Zane Tetevano - 5 match ban - return v Hull KR 14/08
Tom Holroyd - 10 match ban - return v Warrington Wolves 19/08

Tom Briscoe - 2 weeks
Liam Tindall - 2 weeks

Totally agree. Sounds like we also reviewed other similar past cases before appealing
And Newman gets 3 games for in effect a first offence for being mouthy and not swearing which did not even get 10 minutes on the night.
Whereas Tetevano does a terrible late hit with shoulder to the head and a record like Norman Stanley Fletcher is lucky for mine to only get 5 games.

The game has enough issues, it does not need a disciplinary committee diminishing the standing of the sport in the eyes of the fans. With pressure on disposable income it’s a bad combination.

Which it hasn’t done in the eyes of literally everyone outside of Leeds. The way Newman went on wasn’t credible, and belongs in football. The grounds of appeal seemed to be “but he’s passionate” like it’s some form of defence (Ben Flower was passionate too), and completely baffling at best.

2 games was fair (and yes I do think he should have been carded at the time, but hey that’s one that went Leeds’ way) and I would say the same if it were a Saints player.

We don’t know what the grounds for defence were. I’m not saying he did no wrong but it’s first ban as far as I can recall and we keep seeing long bans when players were penalised in the game but either got no cards in the game or a yellow.

When the system can only deal with appeals by increasing bans it’s not fit for purpose IMO

Hang on we can’t have it both ways. We as fans were complaining that Refs were too ready to deal with it in game by handing out cards left right and centre to the point clubs put pressure on the referees to change approach because it’s what the fans want, and now we’re chastising them for handling incidents outside of the game? You know the expression, you can’t have it both ways?

And the system doesn’t only deal with appeals by increasing bans. There have been plenty of examples where the initial ruling was upheld or even reduced. Leeds have had bans overturned over the last few years. But appealing for the sake of appealing, and wasting everyone’s time by presenting no new evidence is when bans get increased, which is what has happened here. And of course there needs to be some sort of deterrent, otherwise all clubs would appeal all bans and be a huge waste of time for everyone else because “why not might as well try your luck”

I don’t want it both ways and don’t recognise your first paragraph. I want refs to deal with it on the pitch such as in the C Cup final when Smithies should have been carded twice but wasn’t.

Huddersfield lost out but Wigan’s next opponents gained.
Regardless, my view makes no difference either way.

Quote: Sir Gregory ParsloeP "I don’t want it both ways and don’t recognise your first paragraph. I want refs to deal with it on the pitch such as in the C Cup final when Smithies should have been carded twice but wasn’t. Huddersfield lost out but Wigan’s next opponents gained. Regardless, my view makes no difference either way.'" Example; https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-le ... 549811.amp

Quote: Sir Gregory ParsloeP "I don’t want it both ways and don’t recognise your first paragraph. I want refs to deal with it on the pitch such as in the C Cup final when Smithies should have been carded twice but wasn’t. Huddersfield lost out but Wigan’s next opponents gained. Regardless, my view makes no difference either way.'" Example; https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-le ... 549811.amp

Just on the appeal, its absolute nonsense that an appeal on fairly reasonable grounds should result in an increased ban. That is what's happened twice - Leeds haven't just gone in and stamped their feet, they've reviewed similar cases and thought the suspension was OTT. Assuming the appeal was made in a reasonable and reasoned manner, responding with an increase to the ban is utterly childish, and smacks of the committee not wanting to be questioned. Rejecting the appeal and witholding a ban is one thing, but increasing it just smacks of petulance. Either that or the committee itself is admitting it got the original ban wrong.

The threat of increasing bans should not exist to put off clubs appealing. If they believe they have grounds they have every right to question the panel. If not it really is just a kangaroo court.

The number and duration of bans for minor offences is no doubt a cause of frustration at other clubs. In the NRL a few years back the criticism got to the point that they had to tear up the disciplinary committee and start afresh, as it was clear too many clubs had lost confidence in the system. I don't think we're there yet, but all it would take is a couple of clubs to push for change and the existing panel would be gone.

Thought 2 was a bit harsh but Newman was out of order and needs to learn. Appealing was only ever going to result in an extra game. I can't work out the reasoning. First step in starting to improve as a club has to come from learning to shut up, take responsibility for our actions on the pitch, take the ban on the chin and learn from it. We seem to carry our in-game frustrations on afterwards and these constant appeals just make us look petulant. It's no wonder our card's been marked. I'm not sure who the ex ref is we keep consulting about these decisions but perhaps we need to stop asking them. We were a bit hard done by. Tough. Suck it up and move on. We keep making a difficult season hard on ourselves by losing players for even longer than we ned to and we only have ourselves to blame for that.

Agree ridiculous appeal as our cards are well and truly marked.
However our game is being ruined by the incompetence of HQ.
Players and fans are becoming disillusioned and people will start to look at other sports for their entertainment. The gap with the NRL is now a chasm and with Australia opening up all our best players will be heading to Aus and Superleague might as well drop the ' Super ' title.

The worst thing about the Newman appeal is that it sends a message to Newman (and others) that the club back him, when he's obviously mouthed off at the ref and stepped over the mark.
That's not good - could end up where players will think they can do what they like and the club will back them.
The panel have said, no sorry, but it's not OK. Here's another game for a nonsense appeal.

As stupid as the whole system is, I actually think we've got what we deserved.

The way to deal with that situation was not to appeal.
Really poor by the club imo.