You can relax for the next 3 games Duckie, and there is no need to stress yourself out, until the play-off game, where barring any injury during training Vaughan will be our starting prop once again.

The best thing for us.
Wouldn’t want him getting 3 games vs London.

The Bunker (the NRL ref ) do intervene, probably more than in Super League. But it's far more professional (not hard admittedly) and smoothly done.

At least Musgrove isn’t at risk of getting a ban…

Well it may also be that he stayed down because he had just had a big shoulder to his head, which I’m sure you can appreciate would be quite an impact - the disciplinary seem to think so

Also, not read all of this thread but seen no mention of Thewlis, who “stayed down” a couple of times and it could be argued should have been green carded

Looks like we are going to appeal the Vaughan ban. Not sure that's a great idea, really. They will probably deem it frivolous and give him an extra game.

Stupid idea. When it comes to contesting bans we’re really a bit thick with which ones to pick.

Even if they leave it as it is I can’t see it being deemed frivilous.

Second guessing the RFL disciplinary is folly. Best case we get him back for London at home, worst case we lose him for first play off game. Just isn’t worth the risk at all. Last season was a free hit to get him back for potential play off games and we didn’t bother trying. Nonsensical.

Club are appealing the Vaughan ban. My guess downgrade to a C and a 2 match ban.

Btw last time a frivolous charge was added I’m pretty sure it was a player from our squad.

Is a frivolous appeal rule actually in the RFL`s rules?

I only remember it starting to be used by Cullen and cohorts several years ago.

Could be something that they have made-up that doesn`t exist in the actual rules?

It’s still there but it’s not Cullen or the people on the MRP it’s a different panel that deal with appeals.

They'll slap us down hard, you watch. Did the same last time.

It depends how you approach the appeal. Your case can be unsuccessful and even weak without it being deemed frivolous. You basically have to be appealing either guilt or grading and have a case to back it up. You can't appeal on the basis of "this ban is too harsh" or "it didn't deserve the higher end of the grade" or anything like that, which I think is what some of the clubs that kept getting hit with frivolous appeals were doing.

Basically if you go in saying it should be grade C rather than D, you may or may not be successful but as long as you have a reason for arguing such, it shouldn't be deemed frivolous.