Hello chaps. Saints supporter here.
For the record I think Knowles should have got a 1 game ban for the arm pull. It did no damage but it’s not something we want to see in tackles. However, some of the stuff posted on here since Saturday has been mental. Posters wanting Matautia and Welsby banned for perfectly good tackles. Give your heads a wobble. As for us being ‘golden boys’ I’m not sure where this is founded. Like all other teams we have had players banned this year for the pettiest of things. The match review are a mess. SKY hate us. You can hear the disappointment in Clarkes voice whenever we score. We aren’t loved by or get preferential treatment from anyone. Anyway, like I said I think Knowles should have got 1 game.
Some bitterness from a few posters on here though. I thought you would just be chuffed to be back at old trafford after a few crap seasons. How many games did you win this year? 16? 17? You jammie’d a win over Castleford and the week prior beat Huddersfield with the help of Mylers little handstand stunt to get Hill sent off.
In 2008 you weren’t talking about boycotting the sport when Lee Smith had his 4 match ban overturned for kicking a bloke in the head in the semi. So get off your high horses chaps.

See you on Saturday. May the best team win.

Dislocating someones shoulder like that would be an instant red card and probably 8 game ban so crack on. Lomax would just put it back in place and carry on tearing you to shreds

I wouldn't have had a huge issue if Knowles hadn't been banned in the first place - I think some of the reaction to the actual tackle has been a bit hysterical. The idea that Knowles actually had some concept of a 'police hold' while in the process of just trying to delay a PTB is hyperbolic nonsense. It also wasn't anything like a chicken wing, no matter how many times its called that.

The appeal process, however, has been a farce and brought the whole process into disrepute (if more were needed after the ridiculous banathon this year). Utterly ridiculous that they even heard a second appeal after an unsuccessful one.

For me Welsby's was worse, and the sort of tackle the sport needs to get rid of. Hits to the head are not acceptable any more. Calling it a 'great tackle' is stupid. Just as shoulder charges were considered by some to be great tackles when they were nothing of the sort. Uncontrolled tackles like that will lead to injuries as often as they don't.

Regardless, I hope this episode leads to the MRP being completely reset for next season. I'd frankly be stunned if it wasn't.

We won enough games to get into the GF , what’s your point?

Also bringing up a 14 year old incident LOL, may aswell talk about a certain voluntary tackle eh?

They've got him off on a technicality by the sounds of it. How they've done it god only knows but what it has done it brought the whole process into the public eye in a major way and should bring about change for the better which is much needed. Fans and players are becoming totally disillusioned with the sport at the moment, it's not a good look at all.

This week should have been building up the biggest game of the season between 2 great clubs but instead it's about the farcical MRP. There in lines one of the biggest problems the sport has had over the years, press coverage on the negative things in the game and not the positives and on many occasions the sport brings it on its self. Looking on social media many current players are furious with the decision its not just fans.

The way the MRP has dealt with matters this season is gob smacking at times and Leeds will feel very aggrieved about this and quite rightly so. From my point of view I'm hoping Leeds use it to motivate them to the hilt.

Good luck to both teams on the day, Leeds and Saints are great clubs and hope the fans get on too.

My point? I just made a bunch of them in the previous post. They either went over your head or you simply chose not to address them


My point was that the same people crying about the decision to overturn Knowles ban probably didn’t mind Lee Smith getting off. Doesn’t matter if it happened 14 weeks or 14 years back.
Mature comeback with the Chris Joynt incident. Well done to you.

And my point is a 14 year old incident is irrelevant in the context of wgat the MRP has done this season.

The voluntary tackle point was to show how daft your point was

Eh???? Im not comparing the incident 14 years ago to the current match review. I’m not comparing Lee Smith to Morgan Knowles or the severity. The point I made was that the same leeds fans wanting to sell their GF tickets and boycott the sport this week probably had no problem with the judiciary letting Lee Smith off in 2008. It doesn’t make a difference when it happened. Hypocrites.
I don’t know how I can make my point any simpler for you.

I'm sorry, but your second sentence kinda disproves the first.

Nothing what's soever wrong with the Welsby tackle if Sky hadn't have kept going on about it it would have been forgotten by now

The word Probably is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

I could just swell say the saints fans that were 'probably' moaning about Lee Smith in 2008 are now saying this fine - hypocrites

Chris

It will be interesting to see if the sky broadcasting team make any reference to it this coming Saturday. Obviously a hot topic ,will they have the courage to discuss the matter in depth.

Just need to forget about it and focus on the game. Pretty sure that's what RS and team will be doing

Nope. Most Saints fans think Knowles is very fortunate to be playing and like myself would of had no qualms with him being banned.

Nope,I expect them to continue the Saints love in, like they did when they were handed their s in the last 4 grand final losses against us.

Rod Studd's summary on twitter is 'interesting'

Basically Saints said these holds are used in Judo and by the Police so it's all fine.

The more interesting part is that the second appeal judiciary didn't rule on the actual incident just the first appeal and threw the appeal out now surely that should actually mean a retrial rather than throwing it out, and throwing the appeal out should surely mean that the original summary from the MRP should stand?

I didn't think they could make this look worse, but they've managed it.

from what I saw the only reason for that is because the Salford player twisted round to avoid injury, if he'd been held by another player the outcome could have been completely different. Anyway it's done and dusted now, this topic should be about the match now.

The disciplinary issue should be on a separate thread entitled disciplinary incompetence which would allow the powers to see the depth of feeling over this. It would be ideal if it could be a cross forum thread, but not sure if this can be done.

We need to bear in mind that Studd almost certainly has got his info from St Helens so it's hardly neutral reporting. Not that you'd go to him for reliable or impartial stuff anyway.


But the whole thing in the way he's presented it appears to rest on a sort on legalese typo where the appeal summing up was inconsistent with the "of course he's guilty, what are you insane?" finding of the appeal.

How this ends in Knowles just being entirely free of his guilt and ban is totally unclear. He's not been found innocent by anyone.


So St Helens can have their victory on Saturday, I'm sure they'll love it despite it being asterisked forever, as it will be.

The rest of us can only wonder how they and the RFL reduced the game we loved to this.

Wow.

Did Lee Smith throw a grenade at the appeals process to get whatever sanction he was given overturned? He did not.

Your fatuous comparison doesn't even hold the tiniest bit of water.

Leeds set the precedent for appealing an appeal this season.

Saints are just following in your foot steps

Incorrect. Leeds appealed the addition of an additional match for a "frivoulous" appeal

The issue wasn't about the incident it was about the process. Saint found a hole the process wide enough to drive a bus through. The RFL had no choice but to concede. Why Leeds couldn't do the same for Martin? The only conclusion is the quality of the legal advise both clubs received.

Anyone who has ever had a tribunal with an employee will know you have to have rock solid processes otherwise you will be held to account.

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