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":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":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

It is the talk of rugby league. Morgan Knowles, banned for the Grand Final, has been cleared to play after St Helens successfully appealed his case. It has quickly become the biggest talking point ahead of the Grand Final. Two days out from Old Trafford, the fact that Knowles is free to play threatens to be one of the most controversial incidents in the build-up to a Grand Final.
The Super League champions, chasing a fourth-straight title, ensured their star forward would be free to play in the biggest game of the year following the processes set in place. This started when they initially appealed the Match Review Panel's charge against Knowles, which was a Grade B dangerous contact offence.
The first case took place on Tuesday evening. Saints argued, with medical evidence, that Knowles' actions on Salford's Chris Atkin did not force his arm beyond the normal range of movement, which therefore counteracted the decision to sanction him for dangerous contact. Furthermore, Saints argued that the tackle was a professional foul, with Knowles turning Atkin to slow the play the ball down.
The operations tribunal on that night consisted of the barrister, Sean Smith, Russ Bridge, a former Leigh Centurions, Wigan Warriors and Fulham player, and Alan Hunte, a Great Britain international who enjoyed a successful club career, predominantly with St Helens but also Warrington, Hull FC and Salford.
After deliberation, they decided to uphold the ban, citing that Knowles' actions posed an unacceptable risk of injury. But crucially, and this is the important thing, they agreed with St Helens' argument that Knowles had not forced Atkin's arm beyond the normal range of movement and accepted that his action was in an attempt to slow the play the ball down.
This is crucial because the findings of the first tribunal were the base of St Helens' second appeal. Within hours of the case being heard, St Helens, whose case has been directed by CEO Mike Rush, contacted the RFL to state, with provisional evidence, that the verdict was unreasonable and wished to appeal again.
Many have questioned how Saints got a second appeal just 24 hours after the first. Leeds have twice appealed appeals this year but the second hearing wasn't heard until a week later. But the rules state that a hearing will be heard the next day should documentation be lodged before 11 AM. St Helens sent details at around 8 AM.
At this point, Saints' defence was based around the findings of the first appeal. They argued that, given the first tribunal had agreed the incident didn't take Atkin beyond the normal range of movement, it meant it wasn't possible that Knowles could have provided an unacceptable risk of injury. They argued it was, in essence, a contradiction. They also argued that, given the previous panel had accepted the incident was a professional foul, it would be unreasonable to suspend him as professional fouls have never been a bannable offence.
As a consequence, the second tribunal, which featured judge Roger Thomas, former Halifax winger Wilf George and Danny Sculthorpe, whose playing career was largely played out at Wigan, accepted their case was valid and overturned the suspension.
In effect, St Helens were able to win the case by using the first tribunal's words against them. It was, to a degree, a technicality. But they got the outcome they were looking for.

Well done Saints for exploiting the incompetence of the previous panel and shows how sh$te the MRP really is.

Agree other than Hardaker to RC and Sutcliffe LC.
Brave move but I prefer Tindall to Briscoe.
And as someone else pointed out when I went for Leeming in the halves.
Is can we afford 3 smaller players in the 17 (Leeming, O`Connor, Dwyer)?

Quote ="Omar Little"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...'" as expected, a completed load of horsesh*t the 2nd appeal should never have been allowed, and their argument is that the player didnt dislocate his shoulder, so how could it have posed a danger? absolutely pathetic

Quote ="Omar Little"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...'" as expected, a completed load of horsesh*t the 2nd appeal should never have been allowed, and their argument is that the player didnt dislocate his shoulder, so how could it have posed a danger? absolutely pathetic

Donno ain't exactly huge either

I do care and I don't think anything is rigged. I do believe that the MRP is not fit for purpose, to put it mildly.

I'd have Walters in the 17 as he's a big unit. We've been blown away up front by Sts in most recent games and I don't think we can afford to have periods with too many small forwards on the field.

Agreed. Let's retain some sense of perspective here. We don't want Gary turning to the RFL asking for the equivalent of our two points back if Knowles scores the winning try in the GF!

Agree. Saints have won so many games against us in the first 15 mins and while they don't exactly fizzle out after that they do become more manageable. Got to compete in the middle of the field from the off. My team would be:
Myler
Briscoe
Hardaker
Sutcliffe
Handley (if fit)
Smith
Austin
Oledzki
O’Connor
Prior
Bentley
Martin
Tetavano

Subs
Leeming
Thompson
Walters
Donaldson

I concur

I said this about the Martin one before you played us, and his ban was a joke compared to this one.

The MRP give their verdict and then you appeal. After that, you take the punishment.

Another level of appeal just adds the possibility of this happening which makes the MRP look like a joke (their decisions are sometimes but they should be able to then enforce them) and where does it actually stop? If Knowles was still banned does he get another appeal until he's happy?

Guys, can anybody offer me some advice please. Me and my other half are coming down from Edinburgh for a long weekend, and are basing ourselves in the Salford Quays area ready for the game on Sat.

I know normally, there is good banter between rugby league fans generally, but I am aware of the dislike of Manchester and Leeds. Will it be safe to wear Rhinos colours all weekend, or should I just wear them on the Saturday. It’s not something that even occurred to me, until somebody else mentioned it, so don’t want to cause unnecessary grief. I know just wearing colours on Saturday is the safe option, but I enjoy wearing the rhinos colours my 3/4 down a season to watch the games.

Or is it something not to even worry about?

I wouldn't worry about it in the slightest. Wear your colours with pride, you may get some banter but you're inviting that by wearing your colours.
Let me put it this way, I would wear my Leeds shirt there every day without a worry. Leeds United shirt, different story

This is how id go. Probably toughest team to pick this season but I reckon they can get the job done.

33. Zak Hardaker
20. Tom Briscoe
12. Rhyse Martin
4. Liam Sutcliffe

5. Ash Handley
 (Tindall if not fit)
6. Blake Austin
16. Richie Myler

8. Mikolaj Oledzki
24. Jarrod O’Connor

10. Matt Prior

11. James Bentley

13. Zane Tetevano

17. Cameron Smith


Subs
19. Bodene Thompson

22. Sam Walters

25. James Donaldson
9. Kruise Leeming

Missing out
14. Brad Dwyer

29. Liam Tindall
27. Muizz Mustapha
32. Jack Sinfield

Not really, but I do understand that you don't have a clue what you're talking about

I`m not so sure it is a huge scandal especially outside the rugby league world.
But it is a huge mess up by the Panel for allowing a technicality to sour the outcome should Saints win.
Knowles is a great player and it would have helped our cause for sure if he was banned.
Just like us having Sezer out which helps Saints.
Let`s face it we didn`t expect to win on Saturday and we now have our excuses ready if we do lose and for once it might not be the refs fault.
With a bit of luck both Welsby and Knowles will see red on the day


Knowing our luck Knowles will score a late try to take it into golden point and Welsby will kick the one to win it.

Nah the first appeal panel agreed with the assessment that the arm wasn't taken into an unnatural range of motion which was their mistake really. You can't both agree with that and uphold the original ban because the ban was dependent on that fact. Their own verdict actually eradicated Knowles' guilt when it came to the charge levied at him, hence it was overturned. They can't just change the charge

The original Ban from the MRP didn't mention anything to with 'unnatural range of motion' or 'unnatural position'.

This is the original ban

"Dangerous Contact - Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player."

So wether the Appeal panel mentioned unnatural position or whatever is irrelevant to the original Ban

I look forward to seeing whether this method of 'slowing the PTB down' is now more widely used knowing theres no cause to sanction. Id guess if you use it further down the field and not near your own try line itd only result in a penalty and not even a sin binning?